[ Page 5665 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Royal Columbian Hospital child-abuse project. Mrs, Dailly –– 5666

Garbage problem in B.C. Mr. Nicolson –– 5666

Improved assistance for GAIN recipients. Mr. Nicolson –– 5667

Dismissal of teacher for use of narcotics. Mr. Wallace –– 5667

Vancouver bus service cutback. Mr. Lauk –– 5668

Tighter control of lie detectors. Mr. Wallace –– 5668

Propane price increase. Mr. Macdonald –– 5668

Coast transportation study. Mr. Lockstead –– 5669

Non-smokers' Preferred Risk Insurance Rates Act (Bill M 220) Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading –– 5669

Community Resources Boards Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 65) . Second reading.

Ms. Brown –– 5669

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are several very special guests from my constituency. Mrs. Rose Perrault and Mrs. Ann Powers are here today to discuss a very progressive female diversion programme named Quo Vadis. It is a programme designed to assist women in conflict with the law on a first-offence basis.

Secondly, with them in the gallery is a director of the Coquitlam Social Credit Association, Mr. Bob Gruehl. Last, and certainly not least, is my very hard-working constituency secretary, Mrs. Marguerite' Ripley. I would ask the House to make them all welcome.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, to set the record straight on introductions yesterday, the member for Coquitlam introduced a Mrs. Audrey Fondrick, who sent me the following note.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Are you making an introduction, hon member?

MR. LAUK: Yes, and correcting the record, which I am entitled to do, Mr. Speaker.

"Dear Mr. Lauk,

I was introduced in the House yesterday by Mr. Kerster as representing five staff from Mary Hill Centre in Port Coquitlam. I am representing five staff who live and work in that constituency. What Mr. Kerster did not mention was that (a) Mary Hill Centre in Port Coquitlam is staffed and operated by the VRB and (b) the five staff members mentioned do not support Bill 65. We're all pulling for Rosemary.

Yours truly,

Audrey Fondrick."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If you have an introduction would you kindly proceed with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on out with it.

MR. LAUK: I'm pleased to introduce in the gallery today, Mr. Speaker, two persons associated with the disabled citizens resource council: Pat McCray and Doug Munn. A third person, Mr. Speaker, whom I wish the House to welcome is Mr. Yushinori Tanabi, who is the voice of cerebral palsy to Greater Vancouver. I would ask the House to make these people welcome.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce and ask the House to welcome Mrs. Alvin McColley from my constituency.

Also, Mr. Speaker, it's been reported that we have four people in the precinct today who signed the petition. I haven't met them yet, but I understand they are Richard Milhouse Nixon, Henry VIII, Mickey Mouse and the former Governor of New York.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): To get back to reality, Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a constituent and patient of mine, Mrs. Ursula Jupp, who is a writer of various books dealing with the marine history of British Columbia, and would ask the House to welcome her.

Also, Mr. Speaker, with the continuing interest in our debates, I would like to introduce Mr. Bruce Eriksen of the Downtown Eastside Residents Association.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in introducing someone here today from my constituency, Mrs. Madeleine Phillips, who is the mother of Steve Phillips, who is the administrative assistant in the office of the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) .

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I also have a number of visitors in the gallery today.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): My dear, your T-shirt is on backwards.

MS. BROWN: No, no. It's on right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Personal attack!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that the Attorney-General brought it to my attention because I want to thank the anonymous donor, whoever it was, who left this beautiful T-shirt on my desk. I appreciate it.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Attorney-General himself is a secret supporter.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm going to put you on waivers.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was you, wasn't it, Garde?

[ Page 5666 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member proceed with the introductions, please?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, they are Elizabeth Burnyeat, Pat Colford, Sandra Currie, Audrey Fondrick, Jim Glover, Anita Ferriss, Kees Langereis, John Lynn, Andy Rasmussen, Gloria Rattner, Judy Walls, Richard Sullivan, Doug Hunter, Rhona Will, Nicki Phillips, Arlene Jackson, Dorothy Restall, Marion Brant, Gloria Greenfield. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming these friends of the Vancouver Resources Board who are visiting me today.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a woman who I'm sure has come over here to see what her husband does day after day sitting in our gallery. I'd like the House to welcome Mrs. Elaine Mooney.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming the rest of the people in the gallery who have unfortunately been unnamed, and hope that they have a good evening as well.

HON. S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Notwithstanding that blanket welcome from the hon. member opposite, I would like to take a minute to introduce some very special guests. Victoria has long enjoyed the reputation as being one of Canada's mainsprings of athletic excellence. We're honoured today to have visiting in the gallery the members of the Bates fastball team of Victoria. The Victoria Bates have just returned a few weeks ago with their third consecutive Canadian softball championship. They are also the defending co-holders of the world championship.

I'd like to take a minute to introduce them to you, Mr. Speaker: Mr. Joe Patterson, manager and coach; Mr. Jim Wilson; Bob Sears; Jack Bates; Ernie Savoie; John Gallow; Peter Songhurst; Carl Walker; John Green; Reg Underwood, and I might say that Reg has the double honour of being just this past week the second-time-around winner of the Tom Longboat trophy as Canada's outstanding native Indian athlete; Dave Williams; Bob Burrows, who is a member of the Canadian and world all-star teams; Harvey Stevenson; Bob Holness; Dave Ruthowsky; Stan Kern; and Ken Bates. I'd ask you to make them all very welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just hopefully on a final point, Mr. Speaker, I would tend to think that there'd be more people introduced in the gallery than there are present in the gallery. Perhaps the Clerk should take notice of that. Secondly, I do hope that the gallery extends the same degree of warm wishes to the members in the House as was extended by the members of the House to them.

Oral questions.

ROYAL COLUMBIAN HOSPITAL

CHILD-ABUSE PROJECT

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Human Resources. I would like to do a follow-up on the question asked recently by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) re funding of a child-abuse project by the Royal Columbian Hospital. If I recall, the minister said at that time that he had not yet received a request for that funding. Have you now received a request, or has your department?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we had an earlier presentation, I think, perhaps some six months ago, but we have had notice of further information coming to us from not only the doctors in the hospital, but also apparently from certain municipal councils. We are awaiting that particular presentation.

MRS. DAILLY: On a supplementary, I wonder if the minister would tell the House if this whole problem will be given priority when it comes to funding within your department.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the whole matter of child abuse is a very serious problem, not only in New Westminster and Vancouver, but throughout the lower mainland and, for that matter, throughout British Columbia. What we're hoping to develop is a very comprehensive approach to the problem, and particularly to the areas of the lower mainland where the problem is extreme at the moment.

GARBAGE PROBLEM IN

BRITISH COLUMBIA

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) said that the province was getting to look like a garbage dump. Mr. Debeck of the minister's water resources division said that this is a problem for the Pollution Control Board. Mr. Debeck said that proper pollution control enforcement would have to be a political decision. Can the minister tell the House when he intends to start enforcing the law to clean up the garbage described by the Minister of Agriculture?

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I don't know what garbage the Minister of Agriculture was referring to, if indeed he made the statement, and I don't know why

[ Page 5667 ]

Mr. Debeck would be involved, in that he's not involved with the pollution control branch. If they were speaking of derelict car bodies - if that's the type of garbage they were speaking of - obviously I'll have to ask the Minister of Agriculture what species of garbage he had in mind to determine under whose jurisdiction this comes. We can respond to that later.

IMPROVED ASSISTANCE

FOR GAIN RECIPIENTS

MR. NICOLSON: This is another question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Human Resources. On June 20, the Downtown Eastside Residents Association, in conjunction with many organizations, the city of Vancouver and the Vancouver Resources Board, recommended a six-point programme of improved assistance for the recipients of GAIN to the minister. Support was solicited from every municipal council in British Columbia. Have any municipalities corresponded with the minister in response to the six-point programme?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should mention also, for the information of the House, that a number of those points have already been attended to by the ministry, and certainly our programmes are being continually reviewed to provide more benefits to people everywhere.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, one of the points was to raise the basic rate for handicapped persons and people between 60 and 64 to $284 per month from $265. Is that one of the recommendations that was implemented?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the question leaves the impression that $265 is the limit of benefit available to a handicapped person. In effect, we also have a $57 maximum rental overage allowable to those in need because of high rents, so the benefits have been considerably changed in the last year and they're continually being reviewed, as I suggested.

MR. NICOLSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, item No. 2 was a suggestion that you raise the basic rate for singles and couples to $230 and $340 per month respectively. Has that been acted upon?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The whole matter of rates with respect to people in receipt of income assistance is being reviewed in Edmonton today, not only as they apply in British Columbia, but also as they apply in other provinces. Right now we do have the highest rates in Canada, and if we develop a rate structure which is not in keeping with the other provinces, of course, that presents further problems still. We're making a presentation, as a matter of fact, to the other provinces in the hope that we may develop a resolve to this.

MR. NICOLSON: On a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, how many municipalities have responded and have corresponded with the minister?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know the exact number, but a number of municipalities have responded. We have also responded to the Downtown Eastside Residents Association to say that we would await all of the information before giving them a full reply.

MR. LAUK: I have a supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the rental grant that he referred to in one of his answers. Can the minister confirm that the amount of $13.33 is being deducted from SAFER cheques under that programme for the renters grant, which may or may not be applied in the instance required?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I cannot confirm that.

MR. LAUK: Will the minister undertake to take the question as notice?

DISMISSAL OF TEACHER

FOR USE OF NARCOTICS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education. Has the minister been made aware of the fact that a teacher-counsellor who pleads guilty to the possession of narcotics but who receives a conditional discharge from the court apparently cannot be fired by the school board under the terms of the Public Schools Act?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for bringing the question to my attention. The teacher in question was dismissed by the school board following the new procedure laid out in the Public Schools Act. A board of reference made the decision that the teacher in effect was not guilty because he had been given a conditional discharge and placed on probation. That decision, I understand, will be appealed to the supreme court by the Delta School Board.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that I don't think the outcome, to date, is in the public interest. As far as I am concerned, the school population must be absolutely protected from the abuse of drugs in British Columbia.

[ Page 5668 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would ask both the questioner and the minister who is answering to be guarded in any reply, particularly if this matter is before the courts and an appeal is pending.

HON. MR. McGEER: At the present time, Mr. Speaker, it is not before the courts. I might say that if adequate protection cannot be given to youngsters in our school system as a result of technicalities in the law, it would be an obligation of this Legislature to see that the youngsters of our school system were protected by amendments to that law at a future session.

MR. WALLACE: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, I have made detailed inquiries and the matter is not before the courts. I would like to ask the minister....

MR. SPEAKER: Even if it was pending, I would not want questions before the House that might prejudice a trial in a court of law, hon. member. I would ask you to take that into consideration before you ask a supplemental question.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly will. I would like to ask the minister, regardless of the specifics of an individual case, since the Public Schools Act, in dealing with dismissal, provided the school boards with authority to dismiss for cause up until 1972, when the Act was amended, has the minister recently been giving any consideration within his ministry to reintroducing the provision, which was formerly section 129, which provided the authority to dismiss for just cause?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, in answering the supplementary, I can only say it would be certainly a commitment of mine to introduce adequate safeguards for the youngsters in our public school system if loopholes in the Act currently exist. I'm not sure that is the case; I hope it isn't. If it is, we must correct it.

VANCOUVER BUS SERVICE CUTBACK

MR. LAUK: To the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the proposed cutback of bus services in the city of Vancouver. In view of the fact that the Vancouver city police are extremely concerned about lack of transport late at night, especially for female employees, and the obvious increase in muggings and rapings that occur in other jurisdictions where similar cutbacks have also occurred, would the minister please undertake to influence B.C. Hydro to withhold or suspend their proposed cutbacks until such time as full inquiries can be made with a view to the protection of female employees, particularly in the west end of the constituency of Vancouver Centre?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, it sounds like a very important question. I will, however, have to take it as notice.

TIGHTER CONTROL OF LIE DETECTORS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General took as notice a question on March 30 regarding the use of lie detectors in the public and private sector. Since Mr. John Hogarth stated that the B.C. Police Commission would be recommending to the Legislature tighter controls in the use of lie detectors, can the minister tell the House whether he did in fact receive these recommendations from the B.C. Police Commission? If so, will he be tabling them in the House?

HON. MR. GARDOM: They've not come to my attention yet, Mr. Member.

PROPANE PRICE INCREASE

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I've got a question to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. Recently the government accepted a recommendation from the Energy Commission to increase the price of propane by 3.4 cents. Did the minister receive a report from the Energy Commission detailing their reasons for such an increase?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: Supplementary. Will the minister therefore make that report public? The one of the previous commission was a massive volume in terms of analysing that industry. Will this supplemental report be made public so that we can analyse it?

HON. MR. DAVIS: With qualifications, I'll say yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: Supplementary. What are the qualifications as to why a public document should not be fully exposed to public gaze? Are there qualifications on the release of information in this government? What are they?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, this report has been prepared by the commission. I want to consult with the members of the commission before I make the report public. I hope I can.

[ Page 5669 ]

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary, will the minister, when he files the report, guarantee that nothing in the report has been deleted before it's made public?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary, does the minister say that the policy of his department is that when a report of that kind on a matter of public interest is received in the Energy Commission, he must get the approval of that body before making it public?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, the Energy Commission is both a commission in the independent regulatory sense and a body that makes policy recommendations on request to the government, I'm not quite sure under which heading this report falls, and I want to be sure in my own mind before I table it.

COAST

TRANSPORTATION STUDY

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I have a question to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. Could the minister tell this House when he expects the study currently being conducted by Professor Rupenthal, I think it is, of UBC, regarding coast transportation problems and ferry problems to be completed?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Rupenthal's deadline for submission of the report to my ministry is the end of this month. We expect we'll receive the report by September 30.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) has asked a question about a moratorium on mortgages. Without getting into the question as to whether or not that is desirable, I did research the constitutional problem and would ask leave of the House to table the opinion I have received, which, incidentally, would indicate that such a moratorium is unconstitutional. Along with the opinion, I would like to table the late Alberta Debt Adjustment Act as well as the case of Reference Re the Debt Adjustment Act, found, Mr. Speaker, in Western Weekly Reports, 1943, at page 378.

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

NON-SMOKERS' PREFERRED RISK

INSURANCE RATES ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill M 220, Non-Smokers' Preferred Risk Insurance Rates Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In lieu of calling the hon. member for Oak Bay's bill first today, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate if we continue on with government bills. Adjourned debate on second reading....

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Private bills.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, but today is Wednesday. Oh, well. We don't really want to fool around with private bills.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you want to do private bills today, or would you like to move to public bills and orders?

MR. BARRETT: Leave is granted. (Laughter.)

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It was touch and go, wasn't it, Mr. Speaker? It's Bill 65, Community Resources Boards Amendment Act, 1977, and it says that Ms. Brown adjourned the debate.

COMMUNITY RESOURCES BOARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, before going into my debate I would like to ask the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) whether he has reconsidered his position on Bill 65 and is now willing to withdraw it from the order paper. All the minister has to do is indicate that....

MR. BARNES: He wants you to sit down.

MS. BROWN: No, no. It's not necessary to stand, Mr. Minister. Just nod.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I refuse. I want to stand.

[ Page 5670 ]

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): We can hear you. We heard you say you'd resign.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I want to stand.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a very stubborn minister but I'm not going to give up. The education of the '~minister of Human Resources continues.

MR. BARRETT: He needs a special kind.

MS. BROWN: He does. But before going into that I would like to read a couple of cables which were received in my office this morning and share them with the minister of Human Resources and with the House in general. This one came from Ocean Falls. You know, one of the things that the minister likes to say is that the opposition to Bill 65 is from a very small local group in Vancouver. In fact, it says: "We support you in your efforts to save the Vancouver Resources Board. Signed, Ocean Falls residents." There are a number of names on that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The whole of Ocean Falls! It sounds like King Henry VIII.

MS. BROWN: The other one, Mr. Speaker, just another vocal minority, said: "Keep up the fantastic job. Behind you 100 per cent." It's signed by someone by the name of Joy Langdon.

But this one is a real surprise, Mr. Speaker. I want you to listen to this cable. It says: "I really appreciate what you are doing for the people of Vancouver fighting against Bill 65. 1 wish you strength." It is signed by Jean Kewitt, 1316-20th Avenue, South Lethbridge, Alberta.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We've had lots of those. We had them from Yugoslavia, Kuwait, Korea. We had them from all over the country. I'll show you the petition some time and you'll know where they're from. We even had Mickey Mouse and King Henry VIII. We outdid you.

MR. BARNES: You had support from Chile.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. members please refrain from participating in the debate when they don't have the floor? I believe it's the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard who has the floor at the moment.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. But actually, when we hear from the Minister of Human Resources, we know he is not asleep. So I don't mind if he participates in the debate because it shows he is listening.

Certainly there is an indication that the support for the Vancouver Resources Board does go beyond the small vocal minority that the minister has told us there is.

There is one from Hugh Murray in North Vancouver, and it says: "Hang in there, Rosemary!"

There is one from the staff of Killarney VRB, which says: "We support your efforts to abolish Bill 65. Thank you for your help."

This one says: "My very best wishes in your struggle. I wish you strength." This is from an Elly Tickner of Sooke, B.C.

The final cable came from the staff of the Cedar Cottage Vancouver Resources Board. It is signed by all of them, saying: "Thanks very much. Carry on."

I also received a note from Art Griffin and 11 staff members of the First United Church at Gore and Hastings, saying: "God bless your filibuster. May your voice be like a mountain stream." I'm not quite sure what mountain streams do, but I really appreciate it.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: They flow on forever. That's right.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: A babbling brook!

MS. BROWN: No, he didn't say "a babbling brook." He said, "a mountain stream." And then there is a note from the VRB joint union caucus that says: "We're with you all the way. Thank you for being with us, " et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

What I also would like to do at this time is welcome to the House any members of the Canadian Council on Social Development who may be sitting in the gallery. It's really very ironic, and I'm not quite sure that we're ever going to invite the Canadian Council on Social Development to meet in our province again, because in 1976 when the Canadian Council on Social Development was holding its conference in Vancouver, that was the same time when the minister announced that he was dismantling the community resources boards. We find now, when they are meeting here in Victoria for a conference of their administrators, that they are here again to witness the dismantling and the demise of the Vancouver Resources Board.

One thing we know for sure is that the members of the Canadian Council on Social Development are seeing firsthand just what social progress in British Columbia is all about. They are certainly getting a firsthand lesson in the kind of welfare which comes out of our Minister of Human Resources.

It's too sad because their agenda is a very interesting one and they are dealing with a lot of services which are handled by the Vancouver Resources Board, and are exploring new and different

[ Page 5671 ]

ways of delivering the service. It's really sad, indeed, that instead of being able to participate and share with us in an innovative and exciting idea that works for the people of Vancouver in the way that the Vancouver Resources Board has been working, they are here instead to attend its funeral.

One of the things I want to share with the Minister of Human Resources, because I'm not sure he has time to read - he is so busy carrying through his pacification programme on the Vancouver Resources Board - is the editorial in The Province of today. I am going to read it into the record.

"For a body that's about to be eliminated, the Vancouver Resources Board shows a remarkable liveliness. So much so, in fact, that it may continue to breathe in lively fashion in one way or another after the legislation to abolish it has been passed."

I think the minister should worry about that. If it continues to live after he's tried to kill it, then I think he is in serious trouble indeed.

"The VRB has proved surprisingly popular with the public. . . ." Now, I'm willing to accept that The Province is not as well informed as the Minister of Human Resources. When the Minister of Human Resources says that it is a very small and vocal minority that supports the Vancouver Resources Board, he may be correct. But The Province editorial certainly doesn't share these sentiments.

"The VRB has proved surprisingly popular with the public for several good reasons that have been enumerated in these pages in recent months. Indeed, it is probably that popularity that has divided the Social Credit. caucus on what to do about it..."

It's more than the popularity, actually. It is the fact that the representatives of the Vancouver constituency have certainly had the message delivered to them loud and clear about the value of the Vancouver Resources Board. It is a fact that the Minister of Human Resources does not care. He does not care that with this decision he is going counter to the wishes of his cabinet and other government colleagues.

"There seems no reason to doubt that the caucus is at least worried about Human Resources minister Bill Vander Zalm's determination to eliminate it. He has admitted there was 'some debate' over the timing of the bill and that some government members suggested he drop it in favour of measures simply to impose stricter f financial accountability."

I'm certainly going to be dealing with that question of financial accountability in great length when I do a comparison between the financial accountability of the Vancouver Resources Board and the financial accountability of the Ministry of Human Resources, which is disgusting and pathetic, to say the least.

"Mr. Vander Zalm's defence of the legislation to kill it was unconvincing."

The editorial of the Vancouver Province found your one-hour speech unconvincing. I certainly agree with them in that respect, and a number of other people seem to also.

"His complaints were at most chippy because, in fact, the VRB was being run with strict adherence to public accountability."

What the Vancouver Province doesn't realize is that that is precisely the reason the minister is determined to destroy it - because he does not have a commitment to public accountability. He's totally opposed to it, and he has spent the last three months since the introduction of this bill beating his government into submission so that they would support him on the floor of this House in this dastardly Act.

"As we've said in these columns, the VRB's bimonthly public meetings provided the best kind of accountability."

The minister likes to say that the MLAs should be responsible for what is going on in their ridings, and I certainly agree with him there. One of the best ways in which the MLAs in Vancouver have been able to help the members of their constituencies was through using the Vancouver Resources Board as a resource~. The fact that it was open and that anyone could participate in the discussions was certainly one of the very real strengths of the Vancouver Resources Board. The fact that the openness led the board and the people of Vancouver to think that they could be open with the minister, to be frank with him and to speak clearly to him as they did on June 20 when they met with him in city hall certainly contributed to their demise and to their destruction by a very punitive and vindictive person.

"As we've said in these columns, the VRB's bimonthly public meetings provided the best kind of accountability. They ensured that all the VRB's business was carried out in full view of the public."

That is not something we can accuse the Ministry of Human Resources about. Certainly we can't accuse them of carrying out their business in full view of the public.

"Crackpot schemes by phonies and radicals were never able to make it to first base because they were quickly exposed by those delivering the services and those receiving them."

I don't think the minister needs to be reminded of some of the crackpot grants made by his government when they first came into power in 1977, simply because they didn't have the opportunity to have this kind of open dialogue and assessment of the applications.

[ Page 5672 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one.

MS. BROWN: "In fact, it has been argued. . .

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them.

MS. BROWN: Name names? I'm talking about the Provincial Secretary's grant to that - what was that weird programme called? - Women Alive. Or that strange one where they were going to cure everybody's breast cancer by looking at them, or something like that. The minister herself, the Provincial Secretary, stood up and admitted that she had made a mistake - the kind of mistake that would not have been possible if that application had gone before the Vancouver Resources Board and had been open to public scrutiny.

One of the reasons, of course, why the Vancouver Resources Board is so unpopular with the minister is that in those instances when he might want to make grants to crackpot groups and special interest groups, he's afraid he wouldn't be able to get it through the Vancouver Resources Board or through a community resource board. He wants to retain the power here in Victoria to make that kind of decision himself. So that's what we're talking about - centralization of power. But that's for another day. When I start, I'm going to talk about that.

"In fact, it has been argued that if planners were to start from scratch again designing a welfare service that had to be measured in efficient financial and human terms, the VRB would be the correct model."

That is incredible. There is absolutely no way that anyone could accuse The Province newspaper of being an NDP political paper. Right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hardly!

MS. BROWN: Never. There is no way that anyone can accuse The Province newspaper of being representative of a vocal minority. It's a very respectable morning paper which has a wide readership. As a matter of fact, it usually publishes how many hundreds of thousands people read it every morning, but I haven't got that part of the paper with me. Maybe The Province will mail me in the figures so that I can bring it to the minister's attention.

MR. WALLACE: The figure is 140,000.

MS. BROWN: And they would dare to write an editorial like this? What does the newspaper that is read by 140,000 people every morning in the city of Vancouver have to say about the Vancouver Resources Board?

"In fact, it has been argued that if planners were to start from scratch again designing a welfare service that had to be measured in efficient financial and human terms, the VRB would be the correct model."

Does it make sense to destroy something because it's working? Does it make any sense to you? Do you kill a good idea, a successful project?

AN HON. MEMBER: Only if you are afraid of it.

MS. BROWN: I wonder if one of the reasons it's being killed is because, as well as being efficient and financial, it also dealt in human terms. I wonder if that's the real reason, because there isn't any question - and the minister himself is willing to admit this -that it is not going to be possible for a bureaucracy centred here in Victoria to deliver services in as human terms as it was done when it was done at the local community neighbourhood level. It's not possible.

In the same way that I hope that the minister is willing to learn from me, I am willing to learn from the minister. If the minister has any information that goes counter to that - that shows that human service is delivered better from an isolated bureaucracy far away than it is from a local neighbourhood or community base - I would like the minister to share that information with me. I would like to have access to that information. It would be important to me not just as a politician, not just as a social worker, but as a human being, a person who lives in a community, because it's important to know these things.

The editorial goes on to say ... and I know the minister has a lot of work to do. I see he's working away, but I'm glad he's listening. I'm also glad, Mr. Speaker, that one of the Vancouver MLAs is with us today - the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , the minister responsible for ICBC. Surely one of the things I have found very disappointing about this debate has been the absence of the Vancouver MLAs on the government side, who have not been here to fight for Vancouver, who have not raised a voice and who have not lifted a finger - not publicly, anyway - to represent the constituency which elected them. The editorial goes on to say:

"Whatever complaints the government may have about the way the VRB has been performing, conceptually it is a good system for the delivery of welfare service. It is quite unnecessary to throw out the concept, which is what Mr. Vander Zalm is doing.

"Mr. Vander Zalm and the Social Credit caucus may not have expected to run into such determined and popular opposition."

I believe that, because Mr. Vander Zalm is not a good reader of climates. He's not able to assess~ the situation and really understand what is going on. So I believe he might have missed it. But once it was brought to his attention and once he knew what was happening, I think he should have had the guts -

[ Page 5673 ]

quite frankly, I don't know any other word to use to describe it other than that - to stand up on the floor of this House and ask leave to withdraw Bill 65, sitting in his name on the order paper.

He hasn't done so; instead, he threatened to resign. Instead, for three solid months he beat upon the members of his government until the first minister, the Premier, took off for Europe, taking one of the Vancouver MLAs with him. The rest of the government members caved in. I don't think the government made a wise choice. Issued the ultimatum to choose between the Minister of Human Resources and the Vancouver Resources Board, they made the wrong decision. I hope they live to rue the day.

The editorial goes on to say:

"But clearly the backbenchers are worried about the government's action in terms of the potential political fallout it may create."

I think the only backbenchers whom the Vancouver Province would be referring to would be the two members for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers and Mr. Strongman) . It's interesting, the kind of mail I'm getting from Prince George about the disasters that are going on in Prince George. That that member would be sitting not in his seat but in someone else's seat, and trying to ridicule and make a joke about something as serious as the dismantling and destruction of the Vancouver Resources Board ... but I'm going to share some of those letters with you.

AN HON. MEMBER: All 12 of your supporters were on city hall steps in Vancouver.

MS. BROWN: Right. I'm with you, Mr. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) , because I want the record to show all those members, Esquimalt, Fort George and Omineca.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Please do. Omineca. Don't forget. it. Make sure it's read into the record. Thank you.

MS. BROWN: That's right. The member for Omineca asks to be sure that it's read into the record that he is ridiculing the destruction of the Vancouver Resources Board, But the editorial goes on to say about those very same backbenchers:

"And they should be worried. According to some assessments, Social Credit does not have a notably strong core of voter support that is heavily and traditionally identified with the party. It draws support from the many who would say they are in the Liberal or Conservative stream but who vote Social Credit because they fear socialism and because they believe it to be the most efficient of the alternatives in B.C.'s current political situation.

"If that is the case, then a Social Credit government has to appear, as well as to be, efficient and must avoid action that may appear to be merely vindictive."

I think that with the introduction of Bill 65, the Minister of Human Resources has failed in that respect. He has succeeded not only in appearing, but being, merely vindictive.

"Is Mr. Vander Zalm's determination to kill the VRB concept based on a desire to eradicate all vestiges of the former NDP government?"

We're very fortunate that the minister is in the House. Maybe the minister would nod or shake his head if he wants to respond to this question. I'll put it to him once more: is the minister's determination to kill the VRB concept based on a desire to eradicate all vestiges of the NDP government?

AN HON. MEMBER: He can't shake his head it's so swollen.

MS. BROWN: Is that the real reason? If it is, that certainly would have been a more honest statement for you to have made on Friday, on the floor of this House, than that hour of nonsense and claptrap, and paper-thin chippy accusations which you, brought against the Vancouver Resources Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a hateful man.

MS. BROWN: If that's what you want to do, say it. If that's your reason for destroying the Vancouver Resources Board, say it. Admit it. Maybe you would not find yourself sitting alone over there so often if you had the guts to admit it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Blind hate.

MS. BROWN: The editorial goes on to say....

MR. KEMPF: You've got a lot of company over there, too. Where's your company? Where are your supporters? Where are the other leaders?

MS. BROWN: The editorial really upsets you, doesn't it? It really makes you nervous, and you have every right to be nervous. If I were you, I would be nervous, too. At least the indication of nervousness shows us that you're still alive.

AN HON. MEMBER: More than we can say for you.

MS. BROWN: The editorial continues:

"That is at least an inference that can be made in the absence of any effort made by Mr. Vander Zalm to modify the concept to make a VRB-type operation more responsive to

[ Page 5674 ]

government policy directives.

"It should be remembered that the elimination of the VRB is opposed by the VRB board itself, which might not be unusual if it weren't for the fact that the government's own three appointees. . . ."

The three people put on that board by the minister himself are in opposition as well.

"Mr. Vander Zalm, of course, could not withdraw the legislation now without losing credibility. But there is an alternative if the Socred back bench is concerned enough about the political possibilities of this controversy. He could resign."

AN HON. MEMBER: I wonder why she's worried about our back bench instead of the VRB.

MS. BROWN: You know, one of the things that the editorial does, Mr. Speaker, in discussing Bill 65, is to say that the Minister of Human Resources is in a box. It says if he withdraws Bill 65 now, he'd lose credibility - but who cares? Who cares if the Minister of Human Resources loses credibility? Do you care?

AN HON. MEMBER: We're concerned about the public.

MS. BROWN: Well, that's good. Everybody who cares should raise their hands.

Do you care?

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Yes.

MS. BROWN: Esquimalt cares, and because the member for Esquimalt cares about the Minister of Human Resources losing credibility, the entire social services system of the city of Vancouver is being destroyed and dismantled. That is what it boils down to, because when I raised the question, 10 of his own members were sitting over there, and only one raised his hand. He's already lost credibility with his own caucus, and his credibility is not worth sacrificing the city of Vancouver too. It really is not worth it.

The other recommendation made by The Province is one that appeals to me. If the member for Esquimalt cares so much I would like to suggest that he resign along with the Minister of Human Resources. If that is the price that we have to pay to save the Vancouver Resources Board, I think it's a cheap price. I'm willing to pay it. Are you?

MR. BARNES: I'm more than willing.

MS. BROWN: More than willing? I see the minister is going to talk to the one person who cares about him. Well, I'll tell you, he certainly needs every friend that he can get his hands on.

MR. LEA: With friends like that, you're better off with enemies.

MS. BROWN: Right, because nobody else cared. When the question was put, the fact remain that nobody else cared.

MR. SPEAKER: Now will the hon. member please get back to the principle of Bill 65?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the principle of Bill 65 is inextricably intertwined with the Minister of Human Resources. I am suggesting that if the option offered to the minister by The Province editorial were exercised by that minister, that if he took a piece of good advice offered to him and did resign, the Vancouver Resources Board would have nothing to worry about and it would not be necessary to prolong this debate on Bill 65. That is the way in which they're both connected.

I am sorry that the minister has left the chamber because I wanted to share with him a couple of ideas and thoughts and sentiments about Bill 65 which were shared with his Premier. I don't know whether the Premier speaks to him or tells him about the mail he gets - ah, he's back - affecting Bill 65, but anyway, I received a carbon copy of a letter which was sent to:

"The Hon. William R. Bennett, Premier, Province of British Columbia,

Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C.

"Dear Mr. Bennett:

At a recent meeting of the B.C. Conference of the United Church of Canada, held in Langley, B.C., June 3 through 6,1977, attended by about 550 clergy and lay delegates, the following resolution was passed. . . ."

That was a minority - 550. It's not that big a number, so I accept that that's a minority. However, this was the resolution:

"Whereas Biblically and theologically God calls his people to share his resources equitably with one another;

"And whereas Jesus' ministry reflects a compassion for the poor and that he placed judgment upon the wealthy and powerful who contributed to the exploitation of the poor;

"And whereas in British Columbia at the present time extreme conditions of economic inequity which severely affect large numbers of poor, handicapped and unemployed people are perpetuated by the inadequate basic income policies and programmes administered by the Minister of Human Resources,

"Be it resolved:

" (1) That this conference of the United Church of Canada in British Columbia, meeting

[ Page 5675 ]

in session in Langley, convey to the cabinet and all MLAs its deep concern and opposition to the restrictive and repressive policies towards low-income population as enunciated by the Minister of Human Resources."

We have to remember, Mr. Speaker, it's the same Minister of Human Resources who has introduced Bill 65. That is the link.

" (2) That this conference support the recommended basic social welfare income standard of Vancouver city council - that of $230 a month for single with cost-of-living indexing - until such time as a guaranteed adequate annual income principle be put into effect.

" (3) That this conference again reiterate its support for the guaranteed adequate income principle and commend the Premier again for his positive position on this issue."

I don't know whether you remember this or not, Mr. Speaker, but the Minister of Human Resources came out in opposition to that principle.

" (4) That this conference urge immediate application of the existing Landlord and Tenant Act to all residential hotels and rooming houses in inner core areas of the city and towns and in municipalities in British Columbia.

" (5) That this conference urge the B.C. government to initiate a full guaranteed annual income policy in Canada."

The letter goes on to say:

"Considerable platform discussion time was spent on this subject and we commend it to your attention. All the best."

It was signed by A.M. Anderson, executive secretary, and a Jan Bulman, Outreach consultant.

I want to share with you the thoughts of another minority, a small, vocal minority, and that is the Bible Holiness Movement. This time they didn't write the Premier; they wrote directly to the minister himself and sent me a carbon copy.

"The Hon. William Vander Zalm."

MR. WALLACE: It's Vander Zap. He's zapping the board.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Was that you, Scott?

MS. BROWN: "Minister of Human Resources, Victoria, B.C. Dear Honourable Sir."

That's an interesting comment. Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) said to the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace): "Scotty, I thought you were a Conservative." What does that have to do with a commitment to social services delivered at the local level?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It has to do with name-calling.

MS. BROWN: Well, I'm hoping you're listening to the debate, Mr. Member for Omineca.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): We're concerned about people, not records or ego trips.

MR. KEMPF: Just the people of this province -Canadians.

MS. BROWN: What is he implying - that I'm not a Canadian?

MRS. JORDAN: No, that you're on an ego trip.

MS. BROWN: Ohhh! And you think it's okay to let the Vancouver Resources Board die because the other Vancouver MLAs in your government haven't got the guts to stand up on the floor of this House and fight for them. You believe that anyone with guts is on an ego trip. After years of being married to a doctor, you should know a little bit more about anatomy than that.

MR. KEMPF: She's raising her voice.

MRS. JORDAN: My, my, aren't we arrogant?

MR. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, back to this letter. "Dear Honourable Sir:

"We strongly urge reconsideration of your proposed legislation to eliminate the Vancouver Resources Board. It will not be either efficient or humanitarian to centralize control. Our religious society and its predecessor have worked in various social ministries in the city of Vancouver for 53 years."

Do you think that's longer than the minister has been on this earth? What do you think? Fifty-three years of service to the people of Vancouver.

"During this time, we have faced the emergent conditions of people in need many, many times. Since the formulation of the Vancouver Resources Board, we have found that proper assistance was more effectively handled because of the greater awareness of the local level of need and, at the same time, more human understanding was shown by the fact that communication was possible both from and to the people concerned.

"We were pleased by the high calibre of men originally selected to initiate this and the level of community selection achieved."

That's okay, Mr. Speaker, let the minister yawn.

"This type of rapport and expertise has cost the department nothing and saved it much. Instead of abandoning the project, we contend that it

[ Page 5676 ]

should be renewed again in other communities, the original vote selection restored, and the discretionary powers returned."

What did you say the name of that book was that the member was reading?

MR. LEA: Power Without Glory.

MS. BROWN: That's a very apt title indeed.

"It is useless to argue ineffectiveness when official steps are taken to remove the effective powers. The principle of centralization is invalid in the realm of effective community social work. Even the various levels of government recognize that fact in administration spheres, and it is equally applicable elsewhere. If the converse principle of centralization were correct, all effective control should be centred only in Ottawa, and this is a patent absurdity.

"In dealing with human needs, the resource board concept was excellent and was conceived by persons with considerable experience in the social work field and social fields."

That is certainly not something we can accuse the minister of.

"To disregard this is to ignore every proven principle both of government, expertise, economic flexibility, and particularly the underprivileged. To conceive of any MLA being able to act in the place of the board as a communicator for recipients is to ignore the logistics of need, time and opportunity."

As a matter of fact, it seems to me that very same point was made by a Victoria Times editorial - it's around here somewhere - and I'll read that, too.

"We realize that it may be difficult for a person who has never experienced either the despair or the need of poverty to realize the emergencies connected with it . . ."

I'm glad you find it funny, Mr. Minister.

". . . or the desperate need for a more equitable arrangement being made.

"The argument of economic efficiency is not a valid one; and it is interesting that that is certainly reiterated time and time again. Supposed savings effected are indirectly spent elsewhere through medical aid, law enforcement and private agencies which have had to take up some of the slack or cope with some of the results. Certainly the amount of money being spent by the Attorney-General's department on containment centres and on prisons for juveniles supports this fact. Thus the Vancouver Resources Board was not a cost factor but a good investment in solid community social work.

"Reduction of rolls of recipients does not mean what it appears to. We must ask ourselves: what happens to the desperate ones? What increase is there in petty crime, in violent action, in mental or emotional problems? I wonder if you ever ask yourself those questions, Mr. Minister. Absentee control of this type of situation is totally impossible if the people in need, and particularly the core of need in Vancouver, are to be effectively assisted.

"We trust that you will reconsider your action on this for the purposes of discussion. I have sent copies of this letter as indicated."

It was signed, respectfully, by Leslie H. Wakefield, of the Bible Holiness Movement. That letter was dated June 29.

MR. BARRETT: Was there a reply from the minister?

MS. BROWN: Would you like to hear the reply, Mr. Member?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Would you like my copy of it?

MS. BROWN: Whenever you need copies of your replies, I'll let you have them. "Dear Mr. Wakefield:

"Thank you for your letter regarding Bill 65 and my decision to dissolve the Vancouver Resources Board."

He didn't call it integration, you notice. He admitted for the first time that "dissolve" is what it's all about. None of the euphemisms about integrating it into the Ministry of Human Resources.

"I recognize that this has not met with everyone's approval and that many feel as you do that services in Vancouver will suffer as a result of the takeover."

There are some really key words here, aren't there? "Dissolve" and "takeover." Interesting.

"I can assure you that the decision was not taken lightly and was the result of many months of consideration, discussion . . ."

Discussion with whom, I wonder. The members of the Vancouver Resources Board were certainly surprised by the decision. Nobody discussed it with them.

". . . and review of the board's services, policies and decisions.

"I think you can appreciate that as minister responsible for the delivery of social services, it is imperative that I have the capacity to assure that the system is accountable and responsive to the directions established by government and this ministry."

That's an interesting way of putting it:

[ Page 5677 ]

directions established by government.

"I felt that the additional layer of bureaucracy represented by the board diffused this accountability."

Which brings up the question of accountability. To whom? He obviously was not talking, Mr. Speaker, about accountability to the community, because it's the community that is the board. With its open meetings, it certainly is accountable. There is nothing more accountable than open meetings, is there? No. And when we remember the number of times that I've had to bring to the minister's attention in this House directives out of his department that he was not aware of, we really wonder what he's talking about when he talks about accountability.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising on a point of order. It occurs to me that before this debate continues too much further, we might find out whether or not, indeed, the debate is in order.

I bring to your attention standing order 82 and standing order 87. 1 would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether or not you could confirm to me if indeed the Clerks have followed the practice required in standing orders laid out in 82 and 87, and if indeed you have witnessed that these two procedures that are required by our standing orders have been carried out?

MR. SPEAKER: On the matter raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the need to certify a stage of passing of the bill would only take place after second reading and not prior to it.

MR. BARRETT: First reading, Mr. Speaker. I refer you to....

MR. SPEAKER: First reading is by introduction for all bills in the House, as you understand.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, and then a certification must take place after first reading. I'm only asking, Mr. Speaker, whether indeed such certification has taken place and whether the time noted for the second reading has been recorded and certified. We are now in the second stage of second reading, after the technical error of the moving of the motion of second reading was overcome. I'm wondering, because of that technical error, whether indeed 82 and 87 have been followed, and if it has been brought to your attention that both 82 and 87 have been entered in the book according to the standing orders.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure they have, according to the Clerk's records at the desk, but I'll certainly check it out for you.

MR. BARRETT: Would it not be worthwhile, Mr.

Speaker, to save us a lot of time.... Indeed, if this has not been carried out, the whole debate has been out of order. I would ask that we be told whether that has been carried out, because the member may be speaking out of order. I wouldn't want her to continue if she's out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly the matter will be ascertained by the Clerks in due course.

MR. BARRETT: Could we do that now, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think I should know that now as a member of the House. Don't you think so?

MR. KEMPF: Is that rest enough, Rosemary, or do you want some more?

MR. BARRETT: Has it been signed?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure that everything is in order, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Has it been signed and certified?

MR. SPEAKER: If you wish to discuss it with the Clerks, you can do so.

MR. BARRETT: Well, would it be possible for me to have a photostatic copy of the certification after my consultation with the Clerks?

MR. SPEAKER: Would you care to discuss it with the Clerks, please?

MR. BARRETT: Well, I'd like to know your ruling. If you're asking me to discuss it with the Clerks, are you suggesting that the Clerks are authorized to give me a photostatic copy of the record book?

MR. SPEAKER: The Clerks informed me that it is correct and the bill is before the House in the correct manner.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, they informed you that it's correct. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Fine, thank you.

MS. BROWN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would certainly like to thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for his concern in making sure that the debate is in order. It shows his concern for the Legislature, really - not his concern for me. No, no.

[ Page 5678 ]

MR. SPEAKER: And now the debate continues on Bill 65.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, before the point of order was raised, I was in the process of reading a response from the minister to Mr. Wakefield. I think this is a really good response, because we're going to need it, certainly as it applies to staff jobs. He goes on and says: "Regular staff jobs will not be lost as a result of the change" - he's going to have to live with that because it's in his own handwriting - "although w e will be reorganizing some administrative positions." But nobody is going to lose his or her job. Let the record show that on July 6,1977, the hon. Minister of Human Resources, Mr. William N. Vander Zalm, stated in a letter to Mr. Wesley H. Wakefield, president of the Bible Holiness Movement, that regular staff jobs would not be lost as a result of the change.

The letter goes on to say:

"I am hopeful that the changeover following proclamation of the legislation will involve a minimum of hardship and confusion, and that we can finally amalgamate all social services in the province into an effective and responsive organization."

What a dreamer! How can you amalgamate by tearing down something that's good in order to make it as poor as everything else around it is? Does that make sense to you? Amalgamated mediocrity, that's what he's aiming at. The Vancouver Resources Board has to be destroyed because it was too effective. The delivery of services is too efficient. It has to be made like everything else, like the rest of the province.

He ends up by saying: "It is a service provided to those in need. That should be our concern, rather than the system." Well, we could have a whole debate on that, because, indeed, how you can express concern when you're destroying a system that has proven that it works doesn't make sense to me. You express your concern through the system that you use to provide service. When you destroy a system that works you are showing that you have no concern and that you really don't care.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you noticed the trend that today the letters I'm reading are from various church organizations. This letter is from someone who refers to himself as a Christian, and I noticed a carbon copy went to the minister.

"Dear Mr. Bennett:

"It is a rare circumstance which brings me to write to anyone in government. However, the actions of your government and especially Mr. Vander Zalm in abolishing the Vancouver Resources Board is the last straw."

I want to also bring to your attention that the address of this person is North Vancouver. He is not a recipient of services of the Vancouver Resources Board.

"As a Christian, I am amazed that your government can be so heartless towards those in our society who are less fortunate. As a person who is active in his church in Vancouver's West End, I am very aware of the very positive effect that the Vancouver Resources Board has had. In its short existence, it has been a shining beacon after many years of darkness.

"Mr. Bennett, I find it difficult to believe that your attitude towards the resources board could be the same as Mr. Vander Zalm's. For the sake of those in real need in Vancouver, remove Mr. Vander Zalm from Human Resources and allow the resources board to continue its excellent work."

Those letters, Mr. Speaker, were just a prelude, really, to what I'm going to talk about today in discussing the Vancouver Resources Board and the really excellent job that it's doing prior to its death and demise. Here's the editorial from the Victoria Times, I choose a topic, and the topic for today is poverty. I am talking about ways in which the Vancouver Resources Board attempted to address itself to this very real fact. I want to start out by quoting an editorial from the Victoria Times, Saturday, June 25. Again, it's a newspaper that could hardly be referred to as a vocal minority or even representing a minority, and a newspaper that should have no axe to grind, because it is not even a Vancouver newspaper; it's a Victoria newspaper. The heading of the editorial is "Making a Mistake."

... The Vancouver Resources Board is a luxury I don't think we can afford, ' Human Resources minister Bill Vander Zalm said this week after introducing legislation which abolishes this highly successful institution. The man who claims to have cut out the waste in the welfare budget and turned a profit of $100 million (as if social services could be run like a widget factory) is making sure that not a vestige remains of the reforms, even the good ones, established by the previous government."

One of the things we always here about is: "Why do we always bring politics into social services? Why can't we keep politics out of social services?" This is one of the reasons we can't - we have a minister who makes political decisions.

"Thus he labels the VRB a luxury, conjuring up visions of welfare workers riding around in to their cases in Cadillacs. The resources board did cost more money and it did employ more staff, but the best possible use was made of the increased budget and employees.

"The administration and delivery of social services became humanized. Instead of a remote

[ Page 5679 ]

bureaucracy which took orders from Victoria, there was a board of Vancouver people and smaller, directly elected neighbourhood resources boards; instead of a narrow, vertical line of authority leading directly out of the office of director of social services in Victoria, there was a broad-based pyramid.

"The flow of information and authority went in two directions. Maybe the VRB's most important demonstration was that there is a lot more wisdom and common sense among ordinary people than the bureaucracy in Victoria is willing to admit. Local human resource boards directly challenge the power and authority of the civil service and its nominal masters, the elected MLAs in the provincial cabinet.

"It's nice for Mr. Vander Zalm to say that the job of hearing complaints and suggestions from welfare recipients and parents who want day-care centres and neighbourhoods bothered by juvenile delinquents should be dealt with by the MLAs. The practical effect of abolishing the resources board is that the dialogue will be largely choked off."

This is not in the editorial, but he has said it so many times that I though maybe I should respond to it. The Vancouver Resources Board, like the community resources boards, is not made up of politicians, and politicians are not social workers, except for a few rare exceptions. For the Minister of Human Resources to say that he is abolishing the Vancouver Resources Board so that people can deal more directly with their politicians, with their elected representative, shows two things. Very clearly, (I) he doesn't know what the role of a politician is - the role of an elected MLA - and (2) he has no understanding whatsoever of what community resources boards do. He doesn't. That is why he continues over and over to make the same mistake of saying that he is wiping out the boards so that people can come closer to their politicians. Well, that might not be such a bad thing, because I think if people saw more and knew more about their politicians, a lot of these politicians wouldn't be here. That might not be such a bad thing. I'm glad the minister agrees with me.

Anyway, the editorial goes on to ask:

"How many people on welfare does Mr. Vander Zalm think even know the name of their MLA, let alone how to reach them? These days he is inaccessible in Victoria for five or six months of the year. . ."

This editorial was done before we got into this marathon nine-month session, so it should be "nine or ten months of the year, " I guess.

". . . or on one all-party committee or another traveling the province. The notion throughout the VRB's existence was that it was an open system where the public could find out what goes on inside."

"Staff appointments, administrators of social service, community programmes, everything under the sun, " said VRB spokesman John Lynn, quoted in The Vancouver Sun. "With the board gone now, it's back to the Legislature as the only forum for debate." That's not where it should be because, in fact, there are very few people in this forum who know or understand anything about the delivery of social services, When we debate social service issues on this floor, what we have is a debate of ignorance because people are debating from a basis of a lack of understanding and a lack of knowledge. This is not where the debate should take place.

"It is highly ironic that the NDP administration, though it was tagged as a dictatorial government with near-communist centralizing tendencies, actually carried out this highly significant piece of democratic decentralization, and Social Credit, elected as the party of basic freedoms, the seagull that believed. . ."

MR. BARRETT: Careful what it does to you.

MS. BROWN: That's right. Just don't look up as it's going by.

". . Local government was best, gives the chop to the best thing to come along in social service since the baby bonus." That was an editorial, Mr. Speaker, in the Victoria Times of June, 1977.

1 want to talk about poverty in the Canadian scene. I found that certainly one of the best ways of doing this - and certainly as it was handled - is through reading an article by Joey Thompson which was in The Province of August 4,1977. Joey did an article that's headed "Canada's Poverty Scene Blasted": "Canada has over one and a half million people who are living or working in squalid conditions of poverty and despair, victims of unstable economic conditions and capricious employers."

Now what I want to do, Mr. Speaker, before I get into it, is show you the connection so that you can see that I am in order and that I am discussing Bill 65. Oh, you've seen the connection. You haven't seen the connection? Okay. Bill 65 deals with the Vancouver Resources Board. Part of the responsibility of the Vancouver Resources Board is to deliver services to poor people. That's what poverty is all about - being poor - so I'm in order.

She goes on to say: "They are being denied a basic human right to a decent standard of living, minimal wages, and adequate working conditions." These are the findings cited in a summer report by the National Council of Welfare, a citizens' advisory group

[ Page 5680 ]

established in 1969 to advise the Minister of National Health and Welfare.

Who are the working poor? According to the report, they are families in low-income units. In 1973, 61 per cent of them lived in Ontario and Quebec, 21 per cent on the Prairies, 10 per cent lived in the Atlantic provinces and 8 per cent lived in B.C. Eight per cent of all the people in Canada who are living below the poverty line live in B.C. Over half live in large cities.

When the minister stands up and says that Vancouver is no different from anywhere else and shouldn't expect to be treated differently, it shows he has failed to recognize the simple fact that over half of all of the poor people in this country live in the large cities, and Vancouver is the third largest city in Canada. So what he said doesn't make any sense, does it? A quarter live in small cities and towns and the rest in the rural areas. So when he makes statements about amalgamated services, everybody being treated alike, services for everybody alike, it shows he's failed to take this simple fact into account.

He quotes statistics about Vancouver having so many social workers as compared to the rest of the province. He didn't know a very basic thing like that. Almost one-third of these people are under 25. That is why one of the groups I'm going to touch on specifically today is the juveniles, and I'm going to deal in great length with the services delivered by the Vancouver Resources Board to juveniles in the city of Vancouver.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The member just reminded me. The minister was the one who issued instructions that said: "If you didn't live in certain places, you wouldn't get welfare." Remember that? He said if you choose to live on the top of a mountain or on an island in the gulf somewhere, no welfare.

MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MS. BROWN: So he forces them to live in the large cities, the largest in this province being Vancouver, and then he comes in here and says that he's disbanding and dismantling the Vancouver Resources Board because it gives Vancouver unique and special treatment.

MR. BARRETT: You can accuse him of a lot of things, but you can't accuse him of being consistent.

MS. BROWN: The two-thirds of the remaining 70 per cent were heads of families with dependent children. If there is enough time I hope to deal with those too.

Oh, it's just been brought to my attention, Mr.Speaker, if I may digress just for a minute, that sitting in the gallery is our old friend Mrs. Johnson. I wonder if the House would join me in welcoming her. It's really nice to see Mrs. Johnson sitting there.

They are, as a group, better educated than the unemployed poor but less educated than those who are not poor. They are junior clerks and cleaning women, woodlot operators, fish-processing workers, laundrymen, textile knitters, small appliance packers, babysitters and housekeepers, all of whom are people whose lives are at one time or another all touched by services of the Vancouver Resources Board and, indeed, by all of the community resources boards before they were destroyed by the minister.

They are friends, neighbours and hard-working people who, according to the report, are subsidizing the higher-income earners by their virtual unpaid labour. It is estimated, Mr. Speaker, that on the average, working-poor men earn $6,174 annually and working-poor women $5,761. That works out to less than $500 a month. As I go through and deal with some of the grants delivered and some of the services offered by the Vancouver Resources Board, you will find that that's where the catchment area is - $500 a month and less. A lot of their services are directly zeroed in on that particular group.

The 21-member council says that despite preconceptions that the working poor earn little because they have few skills and even fewer disciplined work habits, there are other reasons for their below-poverty level. The community resources boards recognized this and the Vancouver Resources Board recognized this and tried to introduce a number of programmes to deal with some of these reasons. I'm going to discuss them with you as we go along.

Firms in the marginal labour market are usually small and lack the sophisticated technology, managerial expertise and capital that characterize industries in the normal labour market.

The prospect for workers employed in such marginal firms is bleak since their fate is tied to vulnerable enterprises which can go out of business almost overnight because of a slump in demand or pressure from new competitors. Remember that when I start to talk to you about some of the retraining projects, such as we have at the Britannia Community School and things like that through the resources board. Keep that in mind when I start to talk to you about some of those things.

The council says that industries in the marginal labour market provide little if any opportunity for salary and promotion advancement, nor do they offer on-the-job training. Remember that - no on-the-job training or salary increases because of good performance,

The researchers found that just over half of working-poor families are employed for less than a

[ Page 5681 ]

full year. Only 19 per cent of non-poor families work on a part-year basis, but again the council found that the reduced work year for the working poor was not their choice. That means if they could have got full-time jobs they would have taken them. The Vancouver Resources Board recognized that and tried in a number of its programmes to deal with that. That's what I'm going to be talking to you about.

Many low-wage earners work in jobs which are prone to seasonal interruptions and economic fluctuations. Minimum wage - the band-aid move to patch up the problems of the poor - is not the cure, says the report. We know that, but we know that in the meantime, until governments are seriously ready to address themselves to eliminating poverty, those band-aid programmes are all that we have to work with.

The simple fact that more than half a million Canadians work but remain poor makes it clear that minimum wages by themselves cannot provide an effective income threshold for all low-wage workers. Research found that in five major Canadian cities the minimum wage, while above the poverty level when supporting one adult, was barely above the annual poverty level for two adults, and was grossly inadequate for a family of three or more. It goes on to say that even if the rate was jacked as high as $4 per hour, single-earner families with three children would still remain about $1,005 below the poverty line in our larger cities.

While the unions have helped improve the lot of the working poor, by themselves they are unable to resolve the problem because poverty is a political issue. I want to talk about that some more. An Ontario study found that unionized manufacturing workers earned between 10 and 17 per cent more than non-unionized employees in the same industry. I'm not reflecting on another vote, but remember that when you think about amendments to the Labour Code.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you may not be reflecting on another vote, but another province, I believe.

MS. BROWN: No. The Vancouver Resources Board and the community resource board concept was being studied by many other provinces. The world was looking at that experiment which is being shot down in flames by a government that didn't even understand what was going on. It's a total disgrace.

The council reports that very few of the working poor belong to trade unions or enjoy the advantages and protection provided under collective agreements with their employers. The historical trend in the growth of organized labour is not promising for the working poor, and the council suggested government action. I hope you won't be surprised, Mr. Speaker, if you find that one of the government actions not recommended by the council was the dismantling of the Vancouver Resources Board.

The council report goes beyond present remedies and says:

"Surely if government eliminates the present poverty of the working poor through supplementation, it also ought to ensure that they will not fall back into poverty in their old age, and this can only be accomplished by strengthening the public pension system. The Canada/Quebec Pension benefits must be increased to a long-term goal of 75 per cent of allowable earnings from its present 25 per cent."

The council recommends, to protect those workers with incomes so low that even 75 per cent of former earnings is inadequate, that the guaranteed income supplement should be increased to ensure at least a poverty-line income to all the aged. Certainly one of the major groups that's received its services from the Vancouver Resources Board is the aged. One of the groups that is going to suffer when Bill 65 becomes law is the aged.

It calls for broader labour standards. I'm not going to go into that. It talks about bringing domestics and farm workers under the Labour Code. I'm not going to go into that. It ends up by saying:

"In a society which distributes so much of its rewards on the basis of work, the situation of the working poor is both appalling and inexcusable. They have been cheated by the work ethic and denied the minimal rewards and conditions of employment that most Canadians have come to regard as their right."

Mr. Speaker, although it is a fact of life that the poor have always been with us, it is nevertheless true that every generation rediscovers poverty. Poverty remains, but its structure, its content and the measures required to alleviate it change. That change is what was so important about the Vancouver Resources Board. It was a change from what was before. The fact that we had poverty makes this discovery difficult for each generation. We like to go around saying that we are an affluent society and kidding ourselves that poor people live elsewhere, that they're not here in our own midst. Our society does not like to think about poverty. Our society does not like to understand poverty.

The minister thinks you deal with poverty by saying: "Here is a shovel." When the Premier travels to Europe, begging bankers to come and exploit this province, he does not mention the troubles we already have here. When the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) passes out smile buttons, it is a gimmick to camouflage and hide the worries and discontent growing in our community.

When an issue comes along like the Vancouver

[ Page 5682 ]

Resources Board, it certainly helps us to understand poverty. As a public issue, the issues of poverty and need in our community have indeed been stimulated by Mr. Vander Zalm's proposal. But waiting for the illogical and unpopular actions of the provincial government is definitely not the best way to raise the issue. To make poverty an issue only when the government proposes to make things worse for the poor is not the best way. One irreplaceable feature of the Vancouver Resources Board is that it made poverty a continuing public issue.

If you think that's not so, you should have been at that city hall meeting when the poor got up and spoke for themselves and told the minister what they thought about his way and his government's way of dealing with poverty in this province.

In the few short years of the Vancouver Resources Board and the other elements of the NDP government's progressive steps, the people of Vancouver began to develop a much more sophisticated and penetrating understanding of how their neighbour lived, what needs deserved priority attention, what solutions were at hand. The process was only just beginning. It was beginning. The enlightenment of our communities is in itself a contributory factor in searching out and solving the problem of poverty.

Poverty is a very emotional issue. The poor hate being poor. They know it and they hate it. No group in our society has more interest in it or more passionate desire to eliminate it than those who are actually poor. I think it was Gus Long in her article on poverty who said that if experience was the best teacher, then certainly poor people had their PhD in poverty. They really knew.

Those people who are a little higher up the ladder, those whom we and the social development report referred to as the "working poor, " fear poverty. They are terrified of it. Poverty is for them that which is around the corner. If even one or two things go wrong, if somebody gets sick, if a husband gets injured, if there is a strike, if a plant closes down, poverty for them is a recurrent nightmare. Poverty is the great Depression all over again. Even those people who didn't live through it know about the great Depression. People who lived through it never stopped talking about it. Ask the people who work with the Vancouver Resources Board. They are dealing with a lot of people who lived through the Depression and they will tell you that it left its scars.

This fear of poverty has unusual effects. Most of the working poor are smart enough to know that the politicians who promise . to end poverty are usually talking through their hats. They don't know what they are talking about. They don't understand what poverty is all about.

The working poor know that when the Minister of Human Resources talks about getting people off social assistance, he means getting them off welfare and putting them into the ranks of the working poor. That's what he's talking about. You're beginning to fidget, but this has to do with Bill 65. I've made the link for you, so surely you can see it.

Unlike the Minister of Human Resources, to them this is not a utopian solution. That's not where it's at. The working poor know how fragile and difficult life can be on low seasonal wages with no security and mounting bills. The working poor recognize that the step from degradation to being poor but not receiving welfare is a very small step indeed. People who serve on the Vancouver Resources Board, and people who volunteered for the Vancouver Resources Board, and people who worked for the Vancouver Resources Board knew that too. I'm using the past tense, because as I said yesterday, unless we have a miracle, for all intents and purposes the Vancouver Resources Board is dead.

The working poor have a very pessimistic view of poverty. Lacking faith in any promises to wipe it out, they are frequently deeply concerned with the symptoms of poverty. Studies by the sociologist, Lee Rainwater, suggest that those just above the so-called poverty line are particularly concerned about safety and security. I'm going to be talking a lot more about the security aspects as we go along, because they come up over and over again.

In any event, for them poverty means the danger of fires in ramshackle housing. The native people on the reserves - all those fires, all those children dying as a result of those fires. But the most obvious source of danger to them is violence. The working poor are always concerned about being assaulted, being beaten, being drawn into fights, being mugged, and, of course, the women are always afraid of being raped.

They are also aware that poverty seems to stimulate a great deal of symbolic violence. Certainly the destruction of the Vancouver Resources Board is symbolic violence. It's an act of brutality perpetrated on that city by a bully. That's what it is.

I have a lot of things to say and I try to keep my voice down. I try not to lose my temper, but every now and again my real feelings about what he's doing with Bill 65 come through. It's an act of brutality, an act of violence. Vancouver and its people are impotent to do anything about it, and that makes me angry.

MR. BARNES: Even his own caucus is impotent.

MS. BROWN: Even his own caucus is impotent to do anything about it, and that makes me angry.

The truly poor are treated with a great deal of hostility. The impertinence and the rudeness voiced about them by that minister over there Bums, " he calls them. The abusive landlords, the suspicious

[ Page 5683 ]

merchants - the rudeness that they run into every day, senior citizens in particular.... On their behalf, we should all resent those abuses.

Since it is very difficult for the working poor to dissociate themselves from the extra abuses which accompany real poverty, the end result is that they're fearful and hateful of it. They hate poverty. The people who designed the Vancouver Resources Board and the other community resources boards knew that. Those boards were destroyed, and this one is being destroyed by someone who doesn't understand that simple basic fact.

Everyone knows that poverty in our society is a crime. It's illegal. You get picked up and thrown in jail if you haven't got somewhere to live or somewhere to sleep at night because you are too poor. You get picked up for shoplifting proteins like meat and eggs because you can't live on your welfare and you can't eat on it. The people in the Vancouver Resources Board know that, and you know it too.

The values of our society ensure that poverty is accepted as a criminal act. You're poor because you're lazy. That's what he says. Poor people are lazy; they should be given a shovel - in a province where a government is incapable of creating jobs, to do what?

Those who admit to being poor in this society are immediately outlawed and immediately perceived as being the source of evil. This means that many people avoid the services which were established to assist them.

During the minister's estimates, I told about that family in Vancouver South that wouldn't apply for assistance. They wouldn't apply for it even though they needed it. The children were going to school hungry, and it was not until one of those kids fainted in school and was referred to the social worker - a Vancouver Resources Board worker - that someone went into that family and saw what was happening. What's he going to do? Send somebody over from Victoria to monitor that kind of thing?

Thus even those who have a little bit but are still greatly disadvantaged rarely request and receive what is due them. Thus, because poverty is a crime, it is inevitable that conditions will be more intractable, more socially ignored or feared. When public authorities - and the minister, in particular -promote these attitudes, it only makes things worse.

The stigma that we worked so hard to wipe out while we were a government is back, and it's worse than ever. It's like a cancer. People are ashamed; that minister's statements make them ashamed. His statements about the Vancouver Resources Board make them ashamed. It's going to get worse, because it's true. The Vancouver Resources Board was a buffer between people in need and that minister. When that board goes, those people are going to be unprotected and open and at his mercy. When the attitude of the government is hostile to the poor, it only deepens and compounds the already serious difficulties.

The other direction is the Vancouver Resources Board direction. The Vancouver Resources Board and the community resources boards tended to break down the barriers between groups in our society and to eliminate the walls of fear and hostility which surrounded the very existence of poverty. It is a fact that the unnecessary fear which surrounds poverty is reduced when the programmes designed to alleviate poverty and to assist people come from the community, rather than from distant bureaucracies and bureaucrats; rather than from Victoria, and in particular, from Victoria.

The only thing that ever comes out of that minister is abuse of the poor. He hates them, and he makes no secret of it. The Vancouver Resources Board did not seem to be distant and threatening to the main recipients of service, to the people who worked there or to the community as a whole. The dissolution of the Vancouver Resources Board works in exactly the opposite direction.

It appears to the public, and I've read the editorials and the letters, that these things are a vindictive act of a vindictive government. I really must apologize for being angry with the minister. Who is he anyway? He's just carrying out his government's orders; that's all he's doing. He couldn't get away with that unless he had the support of his government and the support of his Premier, who ducked out and ran because he didn't want to be here when we were discussing this piece of legislation, and I am in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, a personal attack is never in order.

MS. BROWN: I'm not attacking the minister. I apologized.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A personal attack on any member is never in order, and I refer to May, 16th edition, page 400.

MR. BARRETT: Would you read the citation to me, Mr. Speaker, please?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, is it a point of order, or is this the end of the debate?

MR. BARRETT: Read the citation. We may challenge his ruling. I want to know what the citation is. Sit down.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Sit down, Bill. You don't even know how to move a motion, never mind how to follow the rules.

[ Page 5684 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're never here. How would you know?

MR. KING: I was here when you neglected to move the motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please!

The citation is this: "Matters to be dealt with by substantive motion. Certain matters cannot be debated, save on a substantive motion which admits a distinct vote of the House." Further down the page, it says: "For the same reason, no charge of a personal character can be raised, save on a direct or substantive motion to that effect." This is from May, page 400, centre of the page, 16th edition.

MR. BARRETT: Is it the 16th edition?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Page 400?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Is there a substantive motion on the order paper? It would not then be out of order if the member attacks the government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the attack was against a member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who was it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the matter has been dealt with, hon. member. Unless you have a further point of order, I must ask you to take your seat.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you on a further point of order, or on the same point of order?

MR. BARRETT: Well, are you making a ruling that the member attacked the member?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm only doing the job of the Chair in cautioning the member not to attack a member of this House except on a substantive motion. I think that deals with the matter.

MR. BARRETT: Well, he's got another quote there that I think should be read out.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If Rosemary needs a rest, we'll let her have her seat. You don't have to go through all this trouble.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I don't believe there is any argument against the Speaker's ruling. Would you kindly take your seat unless you have a further point of order?

MR. BARRETT: Well, it's a question of whether or not I'm going to challenge your ruling. Do you have a subsidiary ruling to substantiate your quote from May, 16th edition, page 400?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is not a ruling. I'm merely pointing out to the hon. member that a personal attack is never in order.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, then I'm out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, you are out of order, hon. member. Would you kindly take your seat?

MR. KING: Why didn't you say so?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for North Okanagan on a point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, I would like to get on with the debate. I'm anxious to take my place. If that member wants to be frivolous, I'll be very pleased to enter the debate.

In speaking to Bill 65....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: Am I recognized, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please take your chair. You're not recognized, except on a point of order.

MS. BROWN: Nobody knows you.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm very pleased to speak to Bill 65.

MR. BARNES: You'll get your chance.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your very kind ruling. I appreciate your bringing to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition that he was out of order. I really appreciated that.

I also appreciate the member for North Okanagan, who did today as she did yesterday. She rose on a point of order so that I could have a few minutes to sit down, and I really appreciate that support from the government member.

MRS. JORDAN: Correction - I rose to take my place in the debate because the time in the House has been wasted so frivolously.

[ Page 5685 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Kindly take your seat.

MR. BARRETT: You're wasting the time of this House. Shame on you!

MS. BROWN: Forgive her, Mr. Speaker, she knows not what she does.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: What are we going to do to keep her in her seat, for goodness' sake?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor on Bill 65.

MS. BROWN: Are you going to protect the floor for me, Mr. Speaker, so that I can... ?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: I would like to draw your attention to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) . He's continually out of order.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: He said: "That's right."

MR. BARNES: He was born out of order.

MS. BROWN: I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition would check the references, because I'm sure that at some later time we need to check, if the member agrees that he is out of order....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if a member is out of order, that is the responsibility of the Chair. Your responsibility is debate on Bill 65. Would you please continue?

MS. BROWN: Oh, I'm sorry. Of course. I would not dare to infringe upon the responsibilities of the Chair. I have too much respect for the Chair.

But in any event, Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver Resources Board played two very positive roles not directly associated with the delivery of services, which were highly beneficial: (1) it made social services a community concern in a way that had been lost during the long, dark days of the administration of the father of the son - namely, the previous Bennett, W.A.C.; (2) it made discussion and action on social issues less of a stigma. It made the solutions to our problems more of a normal community matter, something of which no one need to be afraid and something of which no one need to be ashamed.

Understanding that the poor hate poverty and that many fear poverty is an intellectual reference point which helps us to understand the importance of the VRB. But there are other important reference points which should provide a background for any government action, and among them I would like to list the following. This all has to do with Bill 65. It is not possible to discuss Bill 65 and the Vancouver Resources Board without discussing poverty.

"Any poverty-line definition of the poor is.highly relative to time and place and is as much a reflection of political and cultural assumptions about poverty than any absolute economic reality." Now that is a very convoluted way of saying that the definition of poverty is not now, and never has been, easy -particularly so if we confine ourselves to simple monetary measurements.

The minister himself did that on Friday in his speech when he told us about that family which was receiving in services, and in money, the equivalent in income to $3 0,000. He just used the figures, but what he did not include in that were the other factors -the social factors of some of the members being handicapped, the large number of children in the family - the special social and financial needs and other needs of that family. So it's always a mistake to look at poverty just in economic terms. Now the minister didn't do that by accident. That was deliberate. Whoever wrote his speech did it deliberately, because I don't believe the minister really knew anything about that family or he certainly would not have laid himself open to criticism by using them.

It is a major cultural bias of this society and this government, however, to look at every issue from the standpoint of dollars and cents - that's all. Every time he stands up to talk about services to people the only thing he talks about is the cost. Worse than that, he talks about the present cost. He never talks about the future costs - the costs that go on and on and on through succeeding generations. The whole government does that.

The usual assumption of the poor as those people who have an annual income below a certain figure has the advantage of being very easy to determine, but it has no use in understanding the real complexities of life. I raised that issue earlier when I was reading the editorial dealing with the minimum wage that said a single person receiving the minimum wage managed to live above the poverty line, but if that was the only wage earned by the family of two or more, then they were below the poverty line. But governments continue to do that - they continue to use income as a marker, even though they know that it is not an accurate one, not even a realistic one, not relevant.

This is the weakness in many proposals for some sort of guaranteed income. From the government's

[ Page 5686 ]

point of view it would be relatively easy to administer, but from a social point of view it is inadequate. Whenever we talk about the poor as legislators and politicians - or about poverty - we should always remember that we're talking about much more than just income. We have to consider capital assets. We know, for example, that the poor have few if any capital assets. The minister knows that. You know, when he circulated that form to the senior citizens asking them to list their assets most of them didn't return the form. They had no assets to list.

The poor are a mosaic of people, not just a simple single category of people, and the government always faces this issue when it chooses between universal services and the means test. This is an issue which is much more difficult to deal with at the top bureaucratic level than at the local level. That's what makes the Vancouver Resources Board and the community resource board concept more relevant.

At one extreme is the senior citizen with a home of her own, but not enough food in the refrigerator, and the older couple who may live in a relatively nice home but lack the money to pay for prescriptions. A number of members of the opposition have raised this issue in particular, since the government introduced its new $100 Pharmacare programme. But I'm not reflecting on that now. Take it easy. Every now and again I mention something as an aside. I'm not reflecting. I'm sticking to Bill 65. They are going to start calling him "Quick-Draw McGraw." Before I can even get a word out he's got the mike going ready to rule me out of order.

If we consider poverty a crime, and those who receive assistance as criminals, then the provision of universal services will always be interpreted as a criminal giveaway. That's where the shoveling-out-of-the-back-of-the-truck thing came from - the universal concept - because we all know that poor people are criminals and poverty is a crime.

When we speak of capital assets we are often talking about very basic matters. We are not talking about those who own their own home, but the really poor, to whom a stove, a refrigerator, or even a common tool like a pair of pliers is an expensive capital asset. For example, one of the most useful programmes for senior citizens which we have in the city of Vancouver, and which is funded by the Vancouver Resources Board, is one which assists them in making basic household repairs.

I'm going to deal in more detail with that, because I have a lot of information about KIND. I'm very proud of the kind of things KIND does, so I'm going to talk about KIND in great detail. A wealthy person can have someone fix a household appliance, or clean their drapes for them, or send the drapes out to the cleaner, or send the rug out to be cleaned, or rent themselves a cleaner, but the poor can't. Poor people's things get soiled just the same as everybody else. This programme goes into the homes of the senior citizens and helps them in that way with their repairs. It provides a kind of substitute for the absence of capital assets.

The development of compensatory programmes in this area required a great deal of study and a great deal of understanding of the day-to-day lives of ordinary people. That's where your community comes in; that's where your neighbourhood comes in. That's what the community resources board concept is all about. You see how the old people around you live; you recognize their needs; you go to a public meeting of the Community Resources Board and you say: "You know what we need in this community? We need a service that goes in and does repairs for the old people." That's how it starts.

Do you think some bureaucrat sitting in an air-conditioned office in Victoria thinking would come up with that kind of idea? They are too busy designing forms and more forms for the old people to fill out listing their assets. Frankly, it is this kind of understanding that was developed through the resources board structure. This almost intimate link between client, community and worker has separated out the resource board concept from other concepts and ways of delivering welfare.

When the minister wrote to Reverend Wakefield and said, "It's not the system that's important, " he really didn't know what he was talking about, did he? It is the system - the resource board system, the community involvement system, the relationship of the community worker and client. That system is what makes the resource board and the Vancouver Resources Board different to what we had prior to that. What we are going to have after you bulldoze this vicious piece of legislation through your inert and incompetent government and ram it through roughshod over the opposition because you have got the numbers.... You've got the numbers. That kind of relationship is clearly going to be threatened by centralization. There isn't, if the minister wants to be honest about it, any way that he can assure us that this is not going to be so.

I want to talk about occupational fringe benefits. We know that the kinds of jobs available to the poor are the most limited kind. They are the jobs that do not pay well. That is why they are poor, oh? If they paid well, they wouldn't be poor. They are the jobs without real security. They are often the jobs that are dangerous, that are monotonous, the jobs that are dirty, the jobs that no one else wants to do, the jobs without any occupational fringe benefits.

One way of distinguishing between the kind of work done by the poor and the kind of work done by the affluent is by examining the privileges, the perks, the fringe benefits. Fringe benefits of one sort or another are often a kind of hidden wage, and also

[ Page 5687 ]

very important to self-esteem. I want all of us here, as I'm speaking, to think about the fringe benefits tied to our jobs. At the upper levels of society, Mr. Speaker, as described by Peter Newman in The Canadian Establishment, for example: "The privileges can amount to virtually being waited upon hand and foot." When Otto Lang wants to bring a babysitter in from Scotland, he puts her on an air force jet or something.

I was interested in a story that I heard on the radio the other day. It said that it appears President Carter does not do his own budgeting and household accounting. In fact, his assistant said that he had probably written only three or four cheques in the last five years. Why should he want to write a cheque? Why should he want to write anything? He's got a machine that signs his name, right? The kind of job which eliminates the need to carry any kind of cash, or even to write cheques, is a very privileged job indeed. I don't know how many times I can think of when I needed a dime to make a phone call.

Think how different that situation is from the situation of the poor - the single parent, the older citizen living on a pension who has to count every penny. They don't write cheques either - they haven't got chequing accounts. They get their pension cheque, it's cashed, and the bills are paid. They get paid, the ones who work at those poor jobs, those low-paying jobs, they cash their cheques, and the bills are paid. They won't be making investments in the new B.C. Investment Corporation. The companies they own, which are going to be up for sale, they won't be able to help buy them back.

The profits from those companies that used to be used to meet the budget for the Vancouver Resources Board, other resources boards, and other welfare needs, are gone. There's nothing they can do about it - not until the next election anyway. They certainly have no fringe benefits. They don't get any company cars, no free business lunches, no free drinks, no access to all kinds of facilities, no conventions - no fringe benefits.

Let's look at the distribution of services as a sign of poverty. Perhaps one of the most important factors of poverty which is missed by those who see it only as an income problem is the maldistribution of public services of one sort or another. You know, it's interesting that the services that affluent or middle-income people in society need are available to everybody. The services that poor people need, they have to apply for each year - put in an application for grants to cover that. Have you ever noticed that? If they're deserving, sure, they get a little OFY, a little LIP, Canada Works, and the VRB grants. Those projects aren't designed to help the children of the wealthy, or the youth of the wealthy, or the senior citizen Bloedels and MacMillans, and people like that. Their distribution of services is right across the board for everybody, but the services that poor people need, they've got to get down on their knees and beg for. Why is that? Because poverty is a crime. As the minister has said on more than one occasion, they're poor because they're shiftless and because they're bums.

Now enlarging the definition of poverty to include this lack of services, and developing programmes to ensure better distribution and access to services is an important responsibility for government. The breadth of meaning in the words "social services" is considerable, but no matter how broadly we conceive the term, it is apparent that those at the top of the social hierarchy benefit more than those at the bottom. Economic policies which protect, support, supply and encourage private profit are the structural causes of inequality in the distribution of services.

A mining company has very little difficulty getting the government to construct a highway to its site, but the people who live in east Vancouver, as the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) will tell you, can't even get their streets paved. You could drown in the potholes.

In every area we investigate, we discover that in the non-monetary aspects of social services, there's a bias against the poor. The executive seeking a job through Manpower doesn't go to the same lineup like the rest. There's a special executive branch, there's a plush office, a friendly receptionist, probably wearing a smile button - "I've got a big smile for you, " and no waiting. But the young person, the ordinary person, looking for a job for herself or himself, gets shuffled from floor to floor, notice board to notice board, from long line to long line - services more cursory, politeness minimal, and respect sometimes absent. This government has successfully shown that the rights of tenants are secondary to the rights of landlords.

MR. BARNES: Right on.

MS. BROWN: It seems to me the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) mentioned that, and as a result there's a case pending or something.

The former are seeking the basic need of shelter and the latter are seeking the socially acclaimed pursuit of profit. Hire an architect to build a private home and the problem is to get as much as possible. Hire an architect to design a public housing unit and the interest is to cut frills, to get as little as possible, to give as little as possible.

Everyone knows that there will never be enough money available to do the job properly. The federal and provincial governments are planning to spend some $59 million for industrial development. This does have to do with Bill 65, Mr. Speaker. Notice how easy it is to agree to spend $30 million for industrial parks. Do you know something? The

[ Page 5688 ]

Mount Pleasant area of the city of Vancouver has been trying to get some parkland too. No money. Certainly one group in the city that recognized the need and supported the people of Mount Pleasant in their efforts was their community resources board. Notice how easy it is to spent $3.85 million on research and analysis - what I call the care and feeding of industrial opportunities. Then compare that with how difficult it is to find money for an opportunities programme for single parents.

Notice, Mr. Speaker, how the incentives provided through DREE are accounted for in millions of dollars whereas the incentives provided for people on welfare are counted in pennies. You can earn another 50 bucks - maybe 100 - no more than that. This is to encourage you; this is an incentive to get you off welfare and into the ranks of the working poor. That's the kind of thing the Vancouver Resources Board addressed itself to.

MR. BARNES: But you must remember that the poor are the residue of wealth, of affluence.

MS. BROWN: That's right. If everybody shared equally, we wouldn't have rich and we wouldn't have poor.

AN HON. MEMBER: And no residue.

MS. BROWN: Oh, that would be a terrible blow to this system, Mr. Member. We can't have that.

Notice, Mr. Speaker, how the B.C. Development Corporation will provide loans to business enterprises at favourable rates. This is to encourage them. The average person who borrows money from a bank, their rates are a bit higher. But poor people who have been labelled "poor risk" by the bank - red circled -and have to borrow money from the finance companies, their rates are nothing short of extortion for even the smallest loan. Those were the things the Vancouver Resources Board addressed itself to. No bureaucrat in Victoria is going to do that.

Notice, Mr. Speaker, how tax money that is spent protecting us from the noxious fumes of underutilized automobiles through a public bus system is always called a subsidy. We're subsidizing the B.C. Hydro, while the giveaway programmes to build plant facilities for corporations shopping around the world for free gifts and protected profits are called an "incentive."

MR. BARNES: Free enterprise. Competition.

MS. BROWN: And notice, Mr. Speaker, the cavalier attitude about raising bus fares. This single action does a great deal to cut down the already restricted mobility of the. poor. Psychologists and social workers have been telling us for years that those on social assistance are frequently house-bound and that this has a deleterious effect on their mental health. Some of the communities in Vancouver brought that to their community resources board. Programmes were developed in neighbourhoods and in neighbourhood houses, funded through the resources board, that addressed themselves to this. When was the last time a bureaucrat in Victoria worried about that?

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't know what you're talking about.

MS. BROWN: Of course they don't know what we're talking about.

Mr. Speaker, what was important about the community resources board idea was that it provided a framework in which some of these problems were being investigated and programmes were being developed. I'm going to get around to talking about some of those programmes because I'm going to discuss, if time allows, a number of those programmes in different areas to show you how the community resources boards really work for the community. The community perceived a need and the resources board responded. What we had were new programmes initiated that had never been in existence in all of the years of governments prior to that. That is one of the reasons why the community resources boards had to die. People were taking control over their lives and making decisions about their lives. There is no way a centralized government would be prepared to accept that. So add that to the vindictiveness.

And as well, the programmes were developed within strict financial guidelines - I'm going to be talking about that - and double accountability. They were accountable to the community and they were accountable to the government. Double accountability.

Mr. Speaker, more importantly, the Vancouver Resources Board acted with a scrupulous egalitarian attitude. And that's bad in a community that verbalizes about equality but supports a system that ensures that equality is never possible. The concern and interest and the particular problems of Shaughnessy were as great as that for the Hastings area, and this fact will be demonstrated when I start reading the letters from Shaughnessy as well as from the Hastings area. Certainly it was a surprise to all of us to discover how much needed to be done, even in those districts which were generally perceived to be privileged.

Mr. Speaker, I know you will agree with me because I'm convinced that without the Vancouver Resources Board and without the community resources board, this fact would never have been uncovered.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver

[ Page 5689 ]

Resources Board clearly showed to all people in Vancouver that equality was important and that it worked, most of all to the poor, who for the first time felt that their problems were not those of a distant and alienated bureaucracy either in city hall or Victoria but something which they could deal with themselves and which were dealt with by people in their own community and in their own neighbourhood. I do not believe that the Vancouver Resources Board or any other body created by the Ministry of Human Resources could ever by itself significantly alter the structure of imbalance between those services which are available to the poor and those which are available to the rich. I accept that.

The task is a long hard road which would involve major reorientation of every department of government. It would require the kind of long-range planning and systematic implementation according to a clear set of goals, implemented by a group of tough, committed public leaders and officials. It would require the kind of vision and purpose which is lacking in most powerful groups in our society. It would take the kind of humanist, socialist perspective which has surfaced from time to time in the CCF and the NDP.

But even if we have a long way to go, the Vancouver Resources Board was a start - a small beginning. The consciousness and understanding of problems and how they affect people, and how important that was, was something that those boards understood. Some small but very useful reforms cannot help but start us out in the right direction. That's what the resources boards did. They started us out in the right direction.

That's why there is so much sorrow at their destruction.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes. But then, of course, we understand when the minister asks: since when does the Vancouver Resources Board have anything to do with justice and health and education?

It has been the habit of the current minister to belittle the Vancouver Resources Board. He's tried to imply that this was just a small, expensive bureaucracy, which was unwilling to follow his policies. When it became apparent, very shortly after the introduction of Bill 65, that many people did not share his trivializing of their community institutions, he switched arguments.

Mr. Speaker, I can go back and read editorials, dating back to that infamous June 22, that would substantiate these facts, but not now; maybe some other time. When it became apparent that more people than even we knew were concerned with the survival of the Vancouver Resources Board, when groups like the Vancouver school board, the city council and the churches and community groups started to speak out, the minister tried to switch his course. He changed his tune.

He tried to create divisions where there weren't any. He tried to set Burnaby against Vancouver, Richmond against Vancouver, Vancouver against the rest of the province - anything that he could think of.

MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MR. LAUK: Divide and conquer.

MS. BROWN: Yet every day the protest grew and expanded. I wonder why. Was it possible that the Vancouver Resources Board had some broad social values - that it was, indeed, serving society?

I want to look at subemployment as a measure of poverty. One of the discoveries by social scientists in the last decade was that pure government-rigged unemployment figures do not adequately measure poverty. Right? Studies have shown that subemployment or underemployment is not separate from unemployment, but that they are closely related.

When investigators examined some of the social consequences of employment, unemployment and subemployment, they uncovered a number of interesting facts. For example, they discovered cyclical variations in infant and maternal mortality could be tied to the degree of unemployment and subemployment. Did you know that? I didn't know that until I started doing research for this debate. I didn't know you could tie cyclical variations and infant mortality and maternal mortality to unemployment.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, That's probably one of the reasons why the Vancouver Resources Board is funding the post-partum service in Vancouver.

MR. BARRETT: The first service of its kind.

MS. BROWN: The first service of its kind.

The minister is not even listening.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with this bill, which I understand to be a message bill, I have just become aware that it may not have been introduced in the proper form. Referring to page 292 of Campion, written messages under the signed manual are brought from the Crown by a member of the House who is a minister of the Crown. The bearer of the message appears....

[ Page 5690 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: Before we proceed with this bill, and in order that this very great effort not be in vain, I've become aware of information which leads me to have some doubt as to whether this bill was properly introduced into this House. I understand it to be a message bill. Reading from page 292 of Campion:

"Written messages under the signed manual are brought from the Crown by a member of the House who is a minister of the Crown. The bearer of the message, that is the minister of the Crown, appears at the bar, informs the Speaker he has a message to the House from the King" - or in our case, I guess, the Lieutenant-Governor - "signed with his own hand, and on being so desired by the Speaker, brings it to the chair, where it is read at length by the Speaker, all members being uncovered." I believe all members were uncovered, but at that time, that meant "without hats." So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask your ruling in the cases of this matter.

MR. SPEAKER: My observation, hon. member, is that it was an interesting hypothesis, but not one that applies to this House.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Bill 65, the Vancouver Resources Board Act, I just want to notify the House that I've just received an absolutely perfect rose from the joint union caucus of the VRB.

MR. LAUK: I think that because it was from an official body in the community, Mr. Speaker, a note should go forward from this Assembly, thanking the joint council for sending the rose and giving encouragement to the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member should be very careful when stating facetious points of order, lest you jeopardize the position of the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker made a statement which I don't know of any known authority for. Could the Speaker elucidate so that I could respond properly?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has nothing but a facetious point of order at that particular moment, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Let's say for a moment that I would agree that it was a facetious point of order. How would that jeopardize the hon. member's position?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for

Vancouver-Burrard.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: That's what I mean: how will it affect the member's position?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: By occupying the floor, hon. member, on something which is not a point of order and therefore interfering with the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, who has the floor in a very legal manner at the moment.

The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, please.

MR. LAUK: I think that Mr. Speaker should not threaten any member with their rights to speak in debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor on Bill 65.

HON. MR. MAIR: If the hon. member rose to speak in debate, we would gladly hear him.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm willing to accept the disruption.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, would you instruct that member to stop interrupting the debate?

MR. SPEAKER: Will all of the members, other than the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard, please desist?

AN HON. MEMBER: You want to be the skipper of the Titanic.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got 'em on the run.

MS. BROWN: You have so many problems with the cracks that are beginning to surface in your own party that I would suggest you pay attention to them first.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're just like kindergarten. They have to have a rest period every hour.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the members on both sides of the floor please continue - or at least allow the member to continue? The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, please.

[ Page 5691 ]

MS. BROWN: Whose side are you on, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm trying to assist you but I'm not having much luck at the moment, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't talk to Rafe. He'll sue you.

MS BROWN: Mr. , Speaker, now that I have the undivided attention of the House....

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose side are you on?

AN HON. MEMBER: Was this rigged yesterday?

AN HON. MEMBER: Big Brother will get you.

MR. BARNES: Watch it.

MS. BROWN: Oh. I haven't got the undivided attention of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're nearing the record.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's make it easy for you. We'll wake her up for you.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about subemployment as a measure of poverty and about some of the interesting facts that have surfaced in studies being done. One of the things that subemployment involves is a lack of individual opportunities for finding a decent job. The tools, resources, services necessary to find a job are more limited for some than for others. I think one of the interesting things about this was done by the Downtown Eastside Residents Association. They showed for a single person in receipt of welfare who would ;o looking for a job, how incredible was the cost of just the bus fare to wherever the person was going and back each day; the cost of the telephone calls, those dimes, in applying for the job; the 12 cents for mailing letters of application - how that would really cut into and erode the small sum of money that they were supposed to supply themselves with shelter and food and clothing, and all their other needs. It is true that the individual, the poor person who is looking for a job, has much more limited resources and far fewer tools with which to work in searching for a job. That is certainly one of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why the PREP programme is such a mockery, but I'm going to deal with the PREP programme at some other time. I don't want to deal with it now.

A key part of this limit is the communications network because most individuals find jobs through personal contact. It's not what you know, it's who you know. Through the grapevine. The plain fact is that the working class, and especially those who have been out of work for some time, lose their contact with the grapevine. They don't hear about the job opportunities, not the good ones anyway. They haven't got that kind of access because they don't participate in the information network which provides hints, suggestions and tips as to where jobs are available.

One of the things that we teach in the school system and in summer school is that if you work hard and you graduate from high school - and the minister thinks that you cut your hair and put a clean shirt on when you go to apply for a job - you'll get it. That's not the way it works. That's one of the realities that the minister has not yet come to accept. It's really much more important to know the boss on the job or to know someone who knows the boss, because then your chances of getting that job are better. Being part of the information network is crucial. I might point out that one of the real dangers of long-term high unemployment is that once you're unemployed, and the longer you're unemployed, the harder it is to find a job.

Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult to devise ways of curbing this disadvantage. The government and many unions have found a partial answer, which is to require that all job openings be posted. In theory this should have dealt with the problem, because in theory this increases access and ensures equality of opportunity, but the reality is quite different. It just doesn't work that way. Often a job will be posted which only describes the formal requirements for the position, or the actual person who gets the job knows a great deal more about the position from the title and the salary. Sure he knows the people involved, their concerns, the policies of the employer, et cetera. That is why I think we need to pay a great deal more attention in a serious and constructive way to this problem. This is what the Human Resources Ministry's PREP programme does not do.

For one thing, the minister made a political decision to make every job he talks about sound horrible. Rather than providing help in finding the right job, he makes work sound like it's a punishment. One of the things that the Vancouver Resources Board and its other facilities did was that it increased or enhanced the functioning of the informal access to job opportunities. When I start to talk about some of the youth programmes, Mr. Speaker, I think you're going to be amazed at the serious in-depth and systematic way in which the Vancouver Resources Board addressed itself to this business of unemployment, especially among young adults.

People looking for work now in Vancouver as a matter of course make a point of dropping in to their

[ Page 5692 ]

local CRB office just to find out what's up, because the local CRB office is plugged into the information network. It's not supposed to be a job-finding office. It's not supposed to be a Canada Manpower office, but the reality of the situation is that it turned out to be plugged into the information network. Because the local offices are in close touch with the VRB, the actual scope of the information is city wide. An incredible network, in terms of job opportunity, is going to be wiped out and eliminated as soon as Bill 65 becomes law.

Thus, Mr. Speaker, I'm arguing that the destruction of the VRB really goes against some of the very policies which the minister so passionately embraces, He tells us that he wants everybody to find work; then he does everything in his power to ensure that they don't. His government sure does everything in its power to ensure that they don't. They're driving small businesses into bankruptcy and creating no employment whatsoever.

A second aspect, Mr. Speaker, of subemployment is the waste inherent in the functioning of the labour market. This means primarily the difference between qualifications and the actual skill requirements of the job. That is to say, people are often more qualified than the jobs they take. I'm not talking about the statistics that show that we have - what? - 100 or so PhDs looking for work.

MR. BARRETT: Ninety-three.

MS. BROWN: There are 93 PhDs in B.C. looking for work. In fact, most people are more qualified, with present company excepted, of course. I would never say a thing like that about the government, I'll tell you.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, there's one PhD over there.

MR. LEA: Who's the PhD over there?

MS. BROWN: The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has a PhD. How do you think he became Minister of Education?

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought his wife had one.

MS. BROWN: No, he's got one too.

MR. SPEAKER: And now back to Bill 65, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Right. As a matter of fact, he's got the additional qualification of being the only person in the world who can tell the difference between a male and a female whale.

MR. BARRETT: He failed that.

MS. BROWN: He failed that one? Awww, I'm sorry. I withdraw that statement, Mr. Speaker. I thought he knew the difference.

It is a common assumption today, Mr. Speaker, on the street that one would never find a job that meets one's skills, aptitudes and interests. It is a sociological fact that this really plays havoc with our young people. They face a terribly tight job market and the jobs they accept tend to place them in job ghettos. Of course this is especially true of women and young people. Again, until we have a fully developed society based on human need rather than private profit, it will be difficult to do more than dent this waste of human productivity.

However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the feminist movement has, on an informal basis, done more to eliminate this difference than any other social movement of this time. Are you agreeing with me, Dave?

MR. BARRETT: I certainly do.

MS. BROWN: Oh, thank you. I really appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I mean, it took Bill 65 to do it. You're going to take a second look at what you just said, are you?

MR. BARRETT: No.

MS. BROWN: Okay, let the record show. I've lost my place, Mr. Speaker.

One very good reason to support agencies specifically involved in the services for women - and I'm thinking especially of Transition House, which is, as you know, one of the services funded through the Vancouver Resources Board - is that they act as a kind of a counselling service which helps women find themselves and understand their own skills and the possibility of using those skills to make a living. I am going to be speaking at great length about the Transition House, so I'm not going to go into that right now.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, after the kind of public statements made by this government over the past two years, I do not believe anyone would be eager to ask the Minister of Human Resources about his concept of poverty, since he has only one broad job classification in his head, namely digging with a shovel.

I always think that the one thing that separates human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom is our ability to write poetry. Although other animals and birds make music and dance and communicate in other ways, all the evidence seems to indicate that homo sapiens is the only member of the species that celebrates joy as well as sorrow, happiness as well as

[ Page 5693 ]

pain in poetry.

I want to share with you, Mr. Speaker, and with the House, a poem written by a Vancouver poet, Tom Wayman, about welfare. It's from his book called Waiting for Wayman which was published at the beginning of 1972. It is a very accurate description of the services as they used to be and of the services as they are going to be once Bill 65 becomes law.

We are in line to be numb.
In the morning when the City goes to work we go down to wait.
We stand. Nothing tells us what to do.
We are here because there is not a dream any more about money.
Here because what we are entitled to is unavailable at the moment
for several weeks. Here because the Unemployment Insurance Commission
believes air is nutritious.
In line the sense begins to go from the tips of your cars.
In line we are aimed at the concrete facade of a structure:
tiny wickets in the face of a high-rise building.
We are also a number.
When your number is called the ends of your fingers do not feel a thing.
You are now a client.
A client is another word,
that the wicket-man says even when he is police: animal.
"Here is a ten dollar food voucher, Mr. Animal.
Come back Thursday for the rest of your allotment."
You want to lean across and say: I am the seagull,
My task is to fly high over the City
crying out to show men there is another life.
And to eat garbage. You are melting snow,
slush whose job it is to disappear down storm sewers,
You wait. . , When your shoulder brushes your cheek it is like wood.
Beard stubble breaks out like iceworms.
Somewhere there is a welfare typewriter.
It has a key-bar that lifts itself, turning silver, streaking for the paper:
this is the incredible numerical key.
When it strikes it will turn itself into strings of rolled-up tens and fives.
Suddenly it ignites.
For if there is supposed to be money
and at last there is a man saying "no"
the stomach disappears.
Starting from the wrists and spreading slowly downwards the hands turn black. Shaking.
You want to argue with the counter how it can stand,
why the nails don't collapse, shatter the plywood.
You want to shout at the City's streets how they can run in two directions at once.
You want to attack the electric clock disputing with the hour hand,
and agreeing with the second.
You want to go somewhere and call it home and lie down
And when you do get your slip, before it is money even you know you have sold out.

I really like Tom Wayman's poems, Mr. Speaker. I don't know how anybody could write poetry about welfare, but he does and he does it beautifully. So I will probably be reading more of him.

I want to deal specifically with my first group of people with whom the Vancouver Resources Board deals - one segment of society whom they serve in their attempts to deal with poverty in this city - and that's the native Indians.

I want to start out by naming services provided through grants from the Vancouver Resources Board: the Vancouver Indian Centre received $26,838; Strathcona received $11,000 for a native Indian worker; Grandview-Woodlands received $22,377 to cover a native Indian worker; and Vancouver South $15, 72 0 to cover their native Indian worker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things the minister discussed in his non-speech which he gave on Friday was the wasting of money. As I draw your attention to those four grants, I want you to make an assessment in your own mind as to whether you consider funds given to the Vancouver Indian Centre to provide native workers for the communities of Strathcona, Grandview-Woodlands, and Vancouver South were wasted. Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver Indian Centre is located in the riding of Vancouver-Burrard, but it serves Indian people from across the city and, indeed, from around the province.

I want to share with you some things from the programme director's annual report. It says:

"I believe our centre can really help co-ordinate an assembly of youth and elders to participate in an event to help promote recreation in conjunction with other

[ Page 5694 ]

organizations to bring harmony to our civil blight."

There isn't anyone who would question that the life of the native peoples in our city is a civil blight, indeed.

"I would like to put this thought into immediate gear for the near future with co-operation from all the board and members. The centre's main function is for a place to get together, and much more. It's a place where native people, newly arrived in the community, go to meet new friends and enjoy old ones, share in social activities, get advice to help adjust to a new way of life, and close the gap between the barrooms and the centre. It's a place for individuals and groups of the community, too. It's a bridge where we should all meet and exchange ideas and learn about each other's experiences and cultures."

In fact, that really is what the Vancouver Indian Centre is all about. It's used very extensively by all groups in the community.

I want to tell you about one of their programmes that I particularly like. That is that they run I guess what you would call a soup kitchen. They prepare lunch every day. Anyone who doesn't have anywhere to go to eat, who doesn't have any food, whether they're Indian or not, can go to the Vancouver Indian Centre and have a basic, nutritious meal. It's nothing fancy - no pheasant under glass, no pate de foie gras, or any of that stuff - just basic stuff. Although the Vancouver Indian Centre is supposed to serve primarily the native peoples in Vancouver, what they found was that they were feeding people from all over the province, especially during the summer. They were feeding transients from all over the province and, indeed, from all over Canada. They would feed them if they turned up because that's the kind of people they are. If they turned up and they were hungry, they'd feed them. That's the kind of service the Vancouver Resources Board is supporting when it supports the Vancouver Indian Centre.

MR. KING: They sure don't look very hungry.

MS. BROWN: No. The Vancouver Indian Centre, Mr. Speaker, does a number of other things and it's involved in a number of other programmes, some of which were started as a result of increased community participation. These include working with group homes, and dealing with men and women in prisons as well as with individuals who just need them. They deal in the area of crafts, encourage some of the dying skills, beading, wood carving, bone carving, music, art, macrame. They show films every night and they have a TV room. They have a men's floor hockey group, a men's soccer team, a softball team and Indian dancing. They also have a prison outreach programme.

I don't know how to explain this, but certainly one of the most unusual experiences that I had was being able to participate with Shirley Smith and some of the people from the Vancouver Indian Centre in this prison outreach programme. With their assistance, I was able to visit Oakalla, the men's section, and spend an evening with them; and to visit the women's section and spend an evening with them, and just talk. It was a kind of an interesting thing for both of us because this was my first trip behind bars. I don't think they gained as much from my visit certainly as I did from it.

But that's one of the programmes that survives and is able to continue because the Vancouver Resources Board, when appealed to by the Vancouver Indian Centre, responded and continues to respond in a positive way. Because of that, the Minister of Human Resources accuses them of wasting money, shovelling it out of the back of a truck.

They have problems too - or the programmes do. There are problems - no question about that. All social services in this province have problems as long as we've got this government to deal with. But they have a women's softball team and a basketball team. I told you about the afternoon lunch programme. They assist in the administering of welfare cheques. They have monthly dances, Indian dancing, tournaments, and they also have a counselling and community service. They have some plans for the future. They are looking forward to forming a youth council, expanding their volunteer service, increasing their youth involvement and developing a Vancouver native sports club.

It's interesting that the Vancouver Indian Centre, Mr. Speaker, which has a budget of ... I don't know - not very much; $200,000 - was able to get out its annual report on time, and the Ministry of Human Resources still hasn't been able to get its out yet, and that efficient department has taken over the community resources board to run it more efficiently.

I don't know if you've ever heard of the Se Ta Co Na Development Society. This is involved with the Strathcona resources board. I want to read you some things from it: "The Vancouver YWCA respectfully requests.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I refer you to standing order 75 of the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly, which reads, with the marginal note that bills must be complete: "No-bill may be introduced either in blank or in imperfect shape."

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the bill itself. You will note that the explanatory note includes the word "integration." Whereas there is no amendment to the definition of integration.... As Mr. Speaker will note, in the opening remarks of the

[ Page 5695 ]

member for Vancouver-Burrard, she gave many definitions. That should be clarified.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, when one refers to the ordinary definition of "imperfect" and "complete, " one must take the ordinary definition to mean that any reasonable, right-thinking person would look at this bill and see that it wasn't, at least, inconsistent or contradictory.

I should point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that section 2 of the bill makes the Vancouver Resources Board a corporation. The marginal note says: "Corporation continued." Section 63 of the bill dissolves the Vancouver Resources Board. So quite clearly, any right-thinking, reasonable person would see that this bill is contradictory on its face, and the ordinary interpretation of that would mean that it's in imperfect shape.

A third point under this standing order should be drawn to your attention. Between section 4 of the bill and the note that it was printed by the Queen's Printer, there is a blank space of some two and one half inches. Either the blank space ...

MR. KING: That's the minister's contribution. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: ... was caused by the minister - and, if so, that's an offence against standing order 75 - or some problem occurred with the Queen's Printer. I would suggest that the Speaker call the Queen's Printer before the bar of the House to explain that blank space.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: But I wish the Speaker to interpret standing order 75 in Bill 65. If the Speaker wishes a recess, the opposition will have no objection.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure of that, hon. member. There is no need to take a recess. Although your point of order is a novel one and one which has used some ingenuity in preparing in order to give the Speaker the benefit of your suggestions and knowledge on bills before the House, I'm sure that you will note that it says: "Bills introduced." The bill was introduced properly some time ago. If there was a problem with it being imperfect, it would naturally follow that the time to refer to that was at introduction of the bill and not while we're in the present stage.

MR. LAUK: I do recall that when the bill was introduced, Mr. Speaker, we opposed leave for introduction.

MR. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the debate which is taking place at the moment, hon.

member.

MR. LAUK: But, Mr. Speaker, at that time we did not state our reasons; we reserved our reasons. Standing order 75 is clearly one possible reason for refusing leave to introduce this bill. Seeing that the bill calls for retroactivity to 1974, at least the Speaker would allow standing order 75 retroactivity to the time of introduction of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The point of order is novel but not well taken.

MS. BROWN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I also would like to thank the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) for being so careful to ensure that I'm not debating in vain. I really appreciate his looking very, very carefully at all of these issues and would like to encourage him to continue to do so from time to time.

MR. LAUK: As the Speaker does.

MS. BROWN: Right, as the Speaker does. I would like to encourage you in your deliberations too, Mr. Speaker, because we certainly don't want....

MR. SPEAKER: May I suggest now that you return, hon. member, to Bill 65 which is before the House?

MS. BROWN: Oh yes, that's what I'm doing, Mr. Speaker. But I would be remiss, I think, if I went right into debate without first of all thanking you for your deliberations.

MR. SPEAKER: Not at all, hon. member, not at all.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about this Se Ta Co Na development society, which is involved with the Strathcona Resources Board. There's a letter there, signed by the director of the branch and the assistant executive director, which went to the YWCA: "The Vancouver YWCA respectfully requests your continued support in its application for a grant from the Vancouver Resources Board in the amount of $13,500." Now what was this grant needed for?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nurseries?

MS. BROWN: No, not for nurseries. The letter goes on to state: "This request is made in order to continue the work of the native Indian youth worker in the Strathcona community." Now that's a community request for granting to continue a community service. The letter goes on:

[ Page 5696 ]

"In its first year, this service has been well received by the native Indian community and has established a solid base for continuing development and expansion. We feel it most important to continue our commitment to the Strathcona native Indian community for the year 1977-1978, and therefore are requesting your support."

This is a timely time to raise that because I don't know whether you know this or not, Mr. Speaker, but the Vancouver Resources Board budget is presently under review. It was introduced for scrutiny at 9:30 this morning.

What does the native Indian youth project do? I don't know whether you know this or not, but certainly the Strathcona area devised its own criteria as to just what the project should do. I want to share that with you. The minister is listening. Good. In Strathcona, there is a growing number of native families in the community. Many of these families have left their homes in rural areas and small towns, looking for a better way of life. They are often very much unprepared for what urban living demands of them. Once in the city, these families are faced with the task of adjusting to an unfamiliar environment and must face the social and economic obstacles, as well as cultural shock, without the support system of family and friends that they had been accustomed to and benefited from at home.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether you remember - you would know about this because I think it was in Monday night's Sun - that one of the parliamentarians traveling across Canada with the group who were entertained here, in Ottawa mentioned that he had been in this country for a number of days and had not met a native Indian person. Do you remember that, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MS. BROWN: I think it was in the Vancouver Sun on Monday night. Now that kind of understanding about the position of the native Indian in our country and in our community is one of the things that the Strathcona Resources Board is trying to deal with when it applies to the VRB for funding for a native Indian worker. These are the kinds of criteria developed by the community who came to recognize the increase of native families in their midst, and some of their discomfort and pain, and the transition from rural to urban living, and they decided that what they needed was someone with the skills to help them through this transition period. They submitted their request for funding and the Vancouver Resources Board responded in a positive way. Okay.

"Poor economic standing, crowded living conditions and sometimes general disillusionment put an excessive amount of stress on the family unit. The combination of excessive stress and feeling of isolation put these families in a precarious position. Most of these families are typified by one or all of the following characteristics: in receipt of social assistance, single parent or two parent families with problems, difficulty in child management, alcoholism, feeling of not being understood, and no one to turn to."

This is particularly applied to the children and youth, and I will deal with that when I deal with the youth programmes.

The children from these families often have a great deal of difficulty fitting into the regular school system and programmes offered by other community resources because they do not possess the skills or such confidence needed to meet the demand in full. For many, and especially the older children, the only alternative for acquiring that important sense of belonging, is to be part of a gang where acceptance and support are often given for types of behaviour that are not always acceptable to the greater community.

People served by the native Indian workers since September 30.... I want to remind you of the minister's statement about the overstaffing of Vancouver - having too many social workers. Approximately 23 children under the age of 13, approximately 32 young people 13 and over and approximately three families....

"The description given above for the native families living in the Strathcona area applies to the client group being served. Some of the children have been in care and in some kind of trouble with the law, and have older siblings in care or in trouble. Of the 32 youths being served, only a handful will probably finish high school unless they get some assistance."

Again, that is where the VRB comes in. That is where the alternative education and the juvenile education programmes, which I'm going to be dealing with, come in.

"Many of the children exhibit behaviour indicating development of poor self-concepts." That is understandable. "Many of the youths tend to equate being native with losing and are beginning to accept this." This is a problem that your native Indian worker, funded by the Strathcona Community Resources Board, addressed himself to,

"While some native families in the community are doing a tremendous job in adjusting to urban living, the majority are not. In each instance when families are in danger, the children from these families are always the ones which are high-risk."

That is kind of a social-work term for describing that. Now what is the goal?

"The goal is to establish and provide a small

[ Page 5697 ]

group socio-recreational programme for native Indian youth in the Strathcona area through the employment of a native Indian worker, and to use the resources of the Pender YWCA to look at possible avenues of programming with native women to meet some of their express needs."

I don't care whether you look at the native population or at the immigrant population, your high-risk groups are always the youth and children, and the women. The same things that I am saying to you about the native Indians I am going to be saying to you again when I start to talk to you about immigration and the kinds of services delivered by the Vancouver Resources Board to the immigrant population in Vancouver.

"Over the past year, such a service has been introduced to the native Indian community and has been well received as a needed service by them. Over 75 native children and youths have taken part in the programme. The number has gradually increased as the native community has seen the Pender YWCA as a resource for them, as well as for the Chinese community. Word has spread from those who have found the programme worthwhile to those who had previously not been involved."

You know, the younger brothers and sisters tell their families about it, and then the older brothers and sisters come to discuss the idea and explore for themselves.

"Interest in the programme was facilitated by native families being visited by the native worker. The purpose of these visits was to introduce herself, as well as to get permission for the children to take part in the programme and to discuss ideas on how the service could be expanded. After their children were in the programme for a while, native women began to drop into the Pender Y, just to see what the kids were doing and to visit with the worker, and sometimes to discuss personal problems and ways in which they could be involved themselves in the project."

See the ripple effect that's coming from this one thing - the kind of ripple effect that happens when a community service is based on the result of grass-roots information.

The women have been involved on an individual basis up until now, and the time is ripe to begin to look at self-help groups with them. Some possibilities that the women have suggested are.... It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that again we find an agency or community group that's willing to take suggestions from its own memberships. Some possibilities that the women have suggested are: a single mother's group, a parent discussion group, a mom-and-tots group.

Sorry, did the Attorney-General... ? Mr. Speaker, time flies. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: When you're having fun!

MS. BROWN: I just got up; I haven't even started.

Ms. Brown moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

ERRATUM: The cover of the VOLUME 8, NUMBER 7 edition of September 14,1977 indicated "Afternoon sitting." It should read "Night sitting."